u 



^m 



THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
STUDIES IN AMERICAN CHURCH HISTORY 

Vol. II. 



THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

COMMISSIONER AND COUNSELLOR 

OF MARYLAND 

BY 

GEORGE BONIFACE STRATEMEIER 

OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS 



A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Catholic Univer- 
sity OF America in Partial Fulfillment of the require- 
ments for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 
1922 



ibncrtph 



THOMAS CORNWALEYS 



F7^4 



NIHIL OBSTAT: 

Fr. Augustinus Waldron, O. P., S. T. M. 
Fr. Dominicus McShane, O. P., S. T. Lr. 

IMPRIMATUR: 

Fr. Raymundus Meagher, O. P., S. T. Lr., LL. D. 
Prior Provincialis. 



THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
STUDIES IN AMERICAN CHURCH HISTORY 

Vol. II. 



THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

COMMISSIONER AND COUNSELLOR 

OF MARYLAND 



BY 



GEORGE BONIFACE STRATEMEIER 

OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS 



A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Catholic Univer- 
sity OF America in Partial Fulfillment of the require- 
ments FOR the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



WASHINGTON. D. C. 

1922 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

Foreword ix 

I Introduction 1 

II The Maryland Charter 7 

III Preparations for the Voyage to Maryland 16 

IV The Settlement of Maryland 27 

V Cornwaleys and Kent Island 34 

VI Cornwaleys as Legislator 45 

VII Cornwaleys and the Jesuits 55 

VIII Jerome Hawley and Thomas Cornwaleys 70 

IX Cornwaleys as Legislator (Continued) 81 

X Indian Disturbances 92 

XI Cornwaleys and Ingle 106 

XII Final Services to the Colony 119 

XIII Conclusion 132 

XIV Critical Essay on Authorities 135 



y 



FOREWORD 

American Catholic history is as old as the history of the 
New World. From the very first, Catholics were among the 
discoverers, explorers and settlers. The record of Catholic 
achievement is not sufficiently known. The deeds of many 
heroic children of the Church, both lay and clerical, have not 
been treasured up in the records as they deserve. 

Happily, of late years serious endeavors have been made 
on the part of Catholics to remedy this state of affairs. 
About two score years ago, there was established in Phila- 
delphia a society having for its object the cultivation of 
historical research. The initiative of these scholars en- 
couraged others in various parts of the United States to 
undertake similar work, some limiting their endeavors to 
their respective localities; while others looked further and 
considered the Church's history in all parts of America. 

Today the greatest asset for promoting interest in the 
study of American CathoHc history is the American Catholic 
Historical Association. The Catholic Historical Review 
brings to the attention of scholars historical desiderata, 
archival materials and aids in the diffusion of historical 
knowledge in general. 

The future without presumption may be said to promise 
even greater things. The American Church History Seminar, 
under the efficient guidance of Doctor Peter Guilday, at the 
Catholic University, is seeking to train scholars who hope to 
contribute their share toward the furtherance of historical 
study and research. The writer of this dissertation has 
experienced the benefits accruing from several years' work 
with Doctor Guilday. 

A few years hence will occur the tercentenary of the 
arrival of the Maryland colonists. Since this event means 
so much to religious liberty, of wliich Catholics are the 
founders, it is most fitting that a more thorough knowledge 
of the early history of Maryland, "the Land of Sanctuary," 
should be provided for Catholics throughout the land. 



X THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Thomas Cornwaleys was one of the leading figures in this 
enterprise. As that event draws near, it is hoped that 
George, Cecihus and Leonard Calvert, together with Corn- 
waleys and Hawley and other leading men of early Maryland, 
shall live again on the pages of our historical publications. 

The writer wishes to acknowledge his great indebtedness 
to Doctor Guilday, under whose guidance this dissertation 
was written. To Doctors P. W. Browne, Stock, and 
Purcell, he owes a debt of gratitude for many valuable sug- 
gestions, but even greater is his indebtedness to his esteemed 
confrere, the Very Rev. V. F. O'Daniel for much help in 
bringing this work to completion. A word of appreciation 
is also due to Miss McShane of the hbrary of the Catholic 
University. Finally his thanks are due to all who have in 
any way given him assistance. 



CHAPTER I 
Introduction 

From the day that Henry VIII broke away from the 
CathoHc Church and set up a religion to suit his hking, the 
adherents of the ancient religion had to reckon with perse- 
cution. Loss of property, banishment and death were the 
lot of those who remained loyal to the faith of their fathers. 
In the first days of the Church, the Christians had to seek 
localities unknown to mankind at large where they might 
serve God unmolested. In fact in every place that perse- 
cution raged the same plan had to be adopted. So also in 
England, when the time of trial came for every true believer, 
Catholics had to worship God in secret as the Christians of 
old. 

\Mien the time of trial lengthened and persecution wore on 
without prospect of relief, other means were adopted. Men 
of property saw their fortunes dwindle away under the stern 
exactions of penal laws. When the fury of the persecutors 
abated somewhat, legal restrictions were still placed upon 
them. Their rights of citizenship were curtailed. In fact, 
many hardships continued for years even though several 
rulers arose who were somewhat more lenient. To escape 
these difficulties, to regain their lost rights, to stand on an 
equal footing with their fellow-men in the social and political 
order. Catholics, as well as the proscribed of other rehgions, 
decided upon self-imposed banishment, first to the continent 
of Europe and then to a home beyond the seas. 

The foundation of Maryland was an outcome of this move- 
ment. Its founders, Calvert and his associates, decided to 
leave their homes in their native land to found in the land of 
America an asylum for the persecuted of all creeds. Among 
the first colonists of this "Land of Sanctuary," the name of 
Thomas Cornwaleys stands out prominently. Resolving to 
sacrifice his fortune and his all if need be, he decided to cast 
his lot with the colonial venture to achieve the boon of 
freely worshipping his God. A lover of liberty and an enemy 



2 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

of proscription, he decided to traverse the ocean to secure 
that which at home he was unable to obtain. 

In sending out his colony into the New World, Cecilius 
Calvert appointed as trusted adviser to Leonard Calvert, the 
governor, a man who was to render his name illustrious in 
the early annals of Maryland's history. It was most fortu- 
nate for him to obtain the services of Cornwaleys. Self- 
confident, cool in the hour of danger, firm, frank and deter- 
mined, he would become, without conscious effort on his part, 
a former of public opinion and a centre to which all eyes might 
turn in cases of emergency and doubt.' In all the activities, 
whether legislative, judicial or military with which his name 
will be linked, he will stand out as fearless and undaunted in 
expressing his views and as a brave defender of the rights of 
proprietor as well as settler. In debates of the Assembly 
he will be found a leader and in every military expedition, 
he will be found the ablest commander. 

In the scattered records of this interesting personage, his 
name assumes a variety of forms. It is spelled in at least 
four different ways : Cornwaleys, CornwaUis, Cornewallis and 
Cornwallys. All these forms are to be found in the Archives 
of Maryland.^ Brown's Genesis of the United States notes two 
variations, Cornewallis and CornwaUis.' We have adopted 
the form "Cornwaleys," because it is so written by liimself.^ 

The ancestry of the sturdy Maryland colonist cannot be 
established with certainty. We will give the genealogy 
generally accepted and then assign our reasons for throwing 
doubt on the same. Neill derives his ancestry from the 
genealogical tree sketched in The Private Correspondence of 
Jane Lady CornwaUis. The authors of The Geyiesis of the 
United States and The Cyclopedia of American Biography 
accept these sources.'' According to these, Cornwaleys' 
lineage is traced to the year 1519, when his greatgrandfather. 



' Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 125. 
' I — Archives of Maryland, Index, p. 552. 
' Brown, Genesis of the United Stales, Vol. ii, p. 1085. 
* Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 181. 

' Neill, Founders of Maryland, p. 69; Brown, op. cit., p. 863; Cyclopedia of 
American Biography. 



INTRODUCTION 6 

Sir Thomas Cornwaleys was born.* This nobleman was the 
husband of Anne, daughter of Sir John Jerningham. He was 
knighted on December 1, 1548. He was comptroller of the 
household of Queen Mary and a member of the Privy 
Council. Due to the fact that he was a Catholic, he was 
removed from both these offices on the accession of Elizabeth. 
He died on December 24, 1604, leaving two sons and three 
daughters. Mice, the second daughter, married Richard 
Southwell, eldest brother of Ven. Robert Southwell, S. J., 
who was martyred at Tyburn, February 21, 1595.^ 

Sir Charles Cornwaleys was the second son of Sir Thomas. 
Nothing is known of his early life. He received the honor of 
knighthood on July 11, 1603. From the year 1605 until 
1610, he was ambassador to Spain. In 1610, he became 
treasurer of the household of Henry, Prince of Wales. His 
death occurred on December 21, 1629. Sir Charles Corn- 
waleys was married thrice. His first wife was Ehzabeth, 
daughter of Thomas Farnham of Fincham, Norfolk.* 

Sir William Cornwaleys, the father of the Commissioner of 
Maryland, according to Neill, was a son of Sir Charles Corn- 
waleys by his first marriage. On August 26, 1595, he married 
Catherine, daughter of Sir PhiUp Parker, of Erwarton, 
Suffolk. The date of his death is not certain, some writers 
placing it as early as 1614 and others as late as 1631. Thomas 
Cornwaleys was his second son.^ 

The writer's reasons for doubting the identity of the Mary- 
land Commissioner and the Thomas Cornwaleys of Neill are 
derived from two sources. Streeter says that the only basis 
for supposing that Sir Thomas Cornwaleys was the great- 
grandfather of the subject of our biography is that they were 
of the same name and creed. ^^ We do not regard this as 
conclusive evidence. Furthermore, a careful scrutiny of the 
genealogy of the Cornwaleys family, found in Lady Corn- 



^ Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. xii, p. 234. 
' Catholic Record Society, Miscellanea, Vol. viii, p. 94. 
8 D. N. B., loc. cit. 
' Brown, op. cit., p. 863. 
'" Streeter, op. cit., p. 124. 



4 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

wallis' Correspondence, reveals the fact that there is only one 
Thomas Cornwaleys that could have been the Maryland 
Commissioner. His wife is Penelope, daughter of John 
Wiseman of Middle Temple and Tyrrels, in county Essex. 
From a letter written by Thomas Cornwaleys in 1638, he 
speaks of his wife.*^ At that time, Penelope Wiseman was 
but three years old. Lady Cornwallis carefully notes when- 
ever any of the persons recorded in her genealogy were 
married more than once. In the case of Thomas Corn- 
waleys there is no such fact noted. And there is no indication 
in any of the records to lead us to suppose that Thomas 
Cornwaleys was married more than once. Consequently we 
feel inclined to adopt the conclusion that the Thomas Corn- 
waleys of this genealogy is not the colonist of this biography. 

The details of the life of Cornwaleys previous to coming to 
Maryland are meagre. Neill claims that he was born in 
1603.^^ The same author asserts that in his youth he was a 
merchant." When his marriage occurred cannot be stated. 
There are only two references to his wife in the available 
records. The first, as noted pre\aously, is contained in a 
letter dated April 6, 1638, to Lord Baltimore. Therein he 
refers to her being indisposed so that she could not very 
efficiently manage his affairs in England.'^ The other will be 
noted when we speak of Cornwaleys' final departure from the 
colony. This is all the information recorded in the career of 
Cornwaleys previous to liis becoming a Commissioner of the 
Maryland Province. 

Thomas Cornwaleys, in a document dated November 15, 
1633, containing Lord Baltimore's Instructions to the col- 
onists, is designated under the title of Commissioner.'^ On 
the first organization of the government, Jerome Hawley and 
Thomas Cornwaleys assumed the offices of Commissioner to 
advise and assist the Governor. They occupy the most im- 

" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 170. 

" Neill, op. cit., p. 70. Throughout this dissertation, the old style of dates 
is used unless otherwise indicated. O. S. indicates old style; N. S., new style. 
'•■' Neill, Thomas CoriiwaUis and Early Afarylnnd Colonists, p. 4. 
" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 170. 
^'•Ibidem, p. 131. 



INTRODUCTION 5 

portant posts in the early development of the history of Lord 
Baltimore's palatinate. This form of administration lasted 
until the arrival of the conunission of November 28, 1637, 
when the Government was reorganized. The office of 
Lieutenant General or Governor remained with Leonard 
Calvert; the duties of .Secretary, Registrar of the Land 
Office, Collector of the Customs and Receiver of the quit 
rents, were united in the person of Mr. Lewger, and the 
latter, together with Hawley and Cornwaleys, the former 
Conmiissioners, were made members of the Council of the 
Province, which superseded the original commission." 

It is strange that among the writers of the early history of 
Maryland, Thomas Cornwaleys has received httle attention. 
The longest account concerning him is that by Streeter in his 
work. Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland. 
Neill wrote two articles on Thomas Cornwaleys' Ufe. The 
first is entitled Thomas Cornwallis and Early Maryland 
Colonists; the other, Thomas Cornwallis, Commissioner, 
written in his book, The Founders of Maryland. Streeter's 
work, though it contains few references has been found 
reliable. Neill, however, is frequently biased. He affirms 
that Cornwaleys was a Protestant, though all authorities are 
agreed that he was a Catholic. In fact, whenever there is a 
question of religion entering into any of Cornwaleys' acts, 
Neill forms an a priori conclusion that his religion was 
Protestant. Since the publication of Streeter's work several 
valuable contributions to Maryland's early history have 
thrown Ught upon many phases of Cornwaleys' career. 

As one of the founders of Maryland, Thomas Cornwaleys 
should be better known. As a legislator in the Assembly, he 
upholds the rights of Lord Baltimore against the machina- 
tions of Claiborne and others. As an advocate of the rights 
of the people he is always found a ready and an able champion 
of their cause. As an upholder of religious toleration, he 
stands ready to condemn any infraction of his Lordship's 
orders to obtain this end. In his capacity as Captain General 

"Streeter, op. cit., p. 104. 



b THOMAS CORN W A LEYS 

of the military forces of the colony he is always prepared to 
defend the colony against the hostile Indians as well as 
against the incursions of Claiborne. His relations with the 
Jesuits in Maryland were most cordial. In his dealings 
with his fellow-men he was always trustworthy, faithful and 
honorable. As a Catholic, he deserves the reputation of a 
staunch adherent of the ancient faith. Russell says of him: 
" He enjoys the singular distinction of having been the trusted 
friend of the Proprietary, of the colonists and of the mis- 
sionaries; and of being the only man in the colony who has 
been universally praised by Protestant and Cathohc writers 
alike." '' 



" Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 104. 



CHAPTER II 

The Maryland Charter 

The Maryland Charter was granted to Cecihus Calvert, 
second Lord Baltimore, on June 20, 1632. This document 
was the bill of rights that was to regulate all the dealings 
of the Proprietary with his subjects. It was to form the 
norm according to which all the functions of the Government 
whatever character these might assume, were to be deter- 
mined. As Thomas Cornwaleys was to become one of the 
leaders in the legislative, judicial and military life of the 
Maryland colony, it is necessary to have an idea as to what 
were the privileges and rights as well as the Umitations of 
those who stood in a position to direct the destines of the 
infant colony. A brief analysis of this interesting document 
will therefore be given in this chapter.^ 

The boundaries of the new province were as fol- 
lows: "All that part of the Peninsula, or Chersonese, 
lying in the parts of America, between the ocean on 
the east, and the bay of Chesapeake on the west, 
divided from the residue thereof by a right line drawn 
from the promontory, or head-land, called Watkin's 
Point, situate upon the bay aforesaid, near the river 
Wighco, on the west, unto the main ocean on the 
east; and between that boundary on the south, unto 
that part of the bay Delaware on the north, which 
lieth under the fortieth degree of north latitude from 
the equinoctial, where New England is terminated: 
and all the tract of that land within the metes under- 
written (that is to say) passing from the said bay, 
called Delaware bay, in a right line, by the degree 
aforesaid, unto the true meridian of the first fountain 
of the river Potomac, thence verging toward the 
south, unto a certain place called Cinquack, situate 
near the mouth of the said river, where it disem- 
bogues into the aforesaid bay of Chesapeake, and 
thence by the shortest line unto the aforesaid 
promontory or place, called Watkin's Point; so that 



' For the text of the Maryland Charter, see: Bozman, History of Maryland, 
Vol II, pp. 9 el seq.; Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, pp. 507 
et seq. 

7 



8 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

the whole tract of land, divided by the line afore- 
said, between the main ocean and Watkin's Point, 
unto the promontory called Cape Charles, and every 
the appendages thereof " '^ 

The colony received its name in this manner. The charter 
was drawn up with a blank where the name of the territory 
was to be inserted. Calvert wished it to be called Cres- 
centia, or the land of Cresence, but he left it to the option of 
the king to designate the title of the colony. The king put 
the question to Lord Baltimore, who said that he would call 
it something in honor of his Majesty, but that he was de- 
prived of this happiness owing to the fact that a province had 
already been named for him, namely, Carolina. Charles 
then suggested that the name be given in honor of the queen 
and proposed Terra Mariae, or Maryland, which was then 
agreed upon and inserted in the document. Thus the pro- 
proposed palatinate was named after Henrietta IVIaria, 
daughter of Henry IV, King of France and Navarre, and 
sister of Louis XHL' 

The origin of the term "palatine" is usually ascribed to the 
Merovingian Kings of France, who delegated a quasi-royal 
power in judicial matters to an official known as "count of 
the palace," C07nes palatii or palatinus. The feudal lord 
could annex to the lands which he granted to liis vassals such 
a portion of the jura regalia as he deemed fit, reserving to 
himself the suzerainty.'' 

The territory granted to Cecilius Calvert was to be a 
palatinate as of the old bishopric of Durham in England. 
The Lord Proprietor of Maryland was to have "as ample 
lights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, roj^alties, liber- 
ties, immunities, and royal rights, and temporal franchises 
whatsoever, as well as by sea as by land, within the region, 
islands, islets, and limits aforesaid, to be had, exercised, used, 
and enjoyed, as any bishop of Durham, within the bishopric 
or county palatine of Durham, in our kingdom of England, 



2 Mereness, op. cil., pp. 507-8. 

3 Scharf, History of Maryland, Vol. i, pp. 51-2. 

4 ZhiW n fiO. 



* Ibid., p. 60 



THE MARYLAND CHARTER U 

ever heretofore hath had, held, used, or enjoyed, or of right 
could, or ought to have, hold, use, or enjoy." ° Lord Balti- 
more's grant was to be held in free and common socage,* 
obliging him to dehver annually at the Castle of Windsor, 
unto the king, his heirs and successors, two Indian arrows on 
the Tuesday in Easter Week, as well as the fifth part of all 
gold and silver found. 

Under the stipulations of the charter, the Proprietor of the 
Province was the owner of its soil. It empowered him, as 
well as his heirs and assigns, to make feudal grants of any 
estate or interest in the land, to be held directly of them by 
the same tenure under which they themselves held it of the 
sovereign. This rendered the Proprietor the sole tenant of 
the crown, and exclusive manorial lord of Maryland. The 
tenure of free and common socage was common to the pro- 
prietor as well as to those holding sub-grants. The serv- 
ices rendered under it by the tenant to the landlord, in 
acknowledgment or consideration of the grant, were fixed and 
determinate, so that the tenant was above the reach of 
exaction. They were of so free a character as not to degrade 
the tenant, and were pacific in their nature, in contradis- 
tinction of the military services which might be required 
under the tenure by knight's service.' Conformably to this 
tenure, the manner and terms of the Proprietary's grants 
were left exclusively to his own determination, and he re- 
tained exclusive control over them throughout the whole 
epoch of the proprietary government. His conditions of 
plantation, proclamations and instructions always delineated 
the conditions under which the lands were granted, as well as 
the manner and terms of the grant.* All officers who received 
delegated power in territorial jurisdiction from the Pro- 
prietary were appointed by him and were subject to his 
removal at pleasure.^ 

' Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate, Note, p. 19. 
' McMahon, An Historical View of the Government of Maryland, Vol. i (the 
only volume published), p. 168. 
' lUd., pp. 168-9. 
8 Ibid. 
» Ibid., p. 50. 



10 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

In regard to the legislative powers of the Proprietary, the 
Charter conferred on him included generally all the objects 
of legislation within the province with the proviso that the 
laws be consonant to reason, and not repugnant or contrary, 
but agreeable to the laws, statutes, customs, and rights of the 
kingdom of England. The document furthermore enjoined 
that the enactment of laws be effected with the advice, assent, 
and approbation of the freemen of the same pro\'ince, or of 
the greater part of them, or of their delegates or deputies. 
These were to be called together for the framing of laws 
when, and as often as need should require. The right to 
determine the form and manner of calling the Assembly was 
expressly vested in the Lord Proprietor of the Palatinate.'" 
Such a government of laws, administered by freemen, was 
the nursery of our free principles and institutions. In 
contrast with all the colonial governments of that day, we 
may truly say of it, that it was full of power and privilege to 
the subject.'^ 

Just as the Charter conferred extensive legislative powers 
so also did it empower the executive to enforce these laws 
by the imposition of fines, imprisonment or of any punish- 
ment in accordance with the law of England. In fact, 
it even gave him the authority to punish crimes to the 
extent of privation of member or life. It gave the Baron 
of Baltimore the authority to constitute and ordain judges, 
justices, magistrates and officers as he deemed fit. In 
short, he was authorized "to do all and singular other 
things belonging to the completion of justice ... to award 
process, hold pleas, and determine in those courts, praetorian 
judicatories, and tribunals, in all actions, suits, cases and 
matters whatseover, as well criminal as personal, real mixed, 
and praetorian."'- In the execution of justice the usages 
and customs of the mother country had an important 
influence. Just as in the palatinate of Durham, so also in 
Maryland, the freemen met in the capacity of a law court as 

'" Mereness, op. ciL, p. 195. 
" McMahon, op. cit., p. 183. 
'^ Cf. Charter, Section vii. 



THE MARYLAND CHARTER 11 

well as in that of a legislative assembly and thus we find that 
body occasionally trying offenders accused of crimes from 
that of a simple misdemeanor to that of piracy, murder, or 
treason." 

The fourteenth section of the Charter provides for the 
proper recognition of merit, and empowers Baltimore to 
grant favors, rewards and honors by conferring titles and 
dignities. This prerogative, however, was subject to the 
restriction "that they be not such as are now used 
in England" a restriction, as McMahon observes," that 
rendered the power a mere nullity. The same historian 
states '^ that the first proprietary in some of his early in- 
structions cherished the idea of conferring dignities as endur- 
ing personal distinctions, but fortunately for the colony, the 
design was never carried into effect as the existence of a 
titled gentry would have proved a dangerous obstacle to the 
growth of liberty in the colony. This same section invested 
the Proprietary with the faculty of erecting and incorporating 
towns, boroughs and cities, "with suitable privileges and im- 
munities, according to the merits of the inhabitants, and 
convenience of the places; and to do all and singular other 
things in the premises, which to him or them (his successors) 
shall seem fitting and convenient; even although they shall 
be such as, in their own nature, require a more special com- 
mandment and warrant than in these presents may be ex- 
pressed." These prerogatives may be placed under the 
caption of regal rights vested in the Proprietary. To these 
are added the pardoning power whereby this personage was 
enabled to remit and pardon all crimes and offenses against 
the laws of the province whether before or after the pro- 
nouncement of judgment.^" This faculty extended even 
beyond the royal grant so that the Proprietary had the power 
of pardoning all offenses committed in his domain, even if 



" Mereness, op. cit., p. 228. 
" McMahon, op. cit., p. 158. 
IS Ibid. 
" Scharf, op. cit., p. 61. 



12 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

they arose under English statutes operating in the palatinate, 
as well as the laws peculiar to the province.'' 

Ecclesiastical rights were vested in Lord Baltimore by the 
grant of ' ' the patronages and advowsons of all churches which 
(with the increasing worship and religion of Christ) within the 
said region . . . shall happen to be built, together with 
license and faculty of erecting and founding churches, chapels, 
and places of worship . . . , and of causing the same to be 
dedicated and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical 
laws of our kingdom of England ... as any bishop of 
Durham, within the bishopric or county palatine of Durham, 
in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had, held, 
used or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have, hold, use 
or enjoy." '* Much has been said, and much written regard- 
ing the definition of the terms of the fourth section of the 
Maryland Charter, by those who assume and endeavor to 
prove that it was a provision for the establishment of the 
Church of England in the colony. That this was the king's 
intention in granting the patent wliich was issued to Lord 
Baltimore under a misconception of the latter's religious 
attitude and subsequent plans, is one view. Another opin- 
ion has it that the King and Calvert joined in false representa- 
tion and in hoodwinking the Enghsh people. The terms of 
this part of the patent have been twisted and tortured into a 
variety of significations, and have been viewed at whatever 
parallax best served the purpose of the writers. '' 

The wording of the section of the Charter dealing with the 
religious prerogatives of the Maryland Proprietary does not 
clear up the difficulty. Considering, however, the attitude of 
the English Ruler toward Lord Baltimore and other Cathofic 
peers, as well as the future acts of Calvert and his colonial 
government it becomes clear what religious power he actu- 
ally possessed. Though the words of the Charter seem to 
indicate that the Church of England was the only one with a 
right to existence in Maryland, nevertheless it allowed 



" McMahon, op. cit., p. 159. 
'* Mereness, op. cit., p. 509. 
"Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, pp. 56-7. 



THE MARYLAND CHARTER 13 

latitude to found other churches. The Charters of Virginia 
and Georgia set forth in no ambiguous terms the permission 
to erect churches, chapels and oratories and of causing them 
to be dedicated and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical 
laws of England, but it did not bind him to do so. As a 
matter of fact one of the first things done in the colony was 
to dedicate a Roman Catholic Chapel.-" Furthermore, the 
King knew full well the religious convictions of Cecilius 
Calvert and his intentions of establishing religious toleration 
and he was aware that Calvert would not accede to the obliga- 
tion of fostering the religion of the Church of England to the 
prejudice of his project.-' 

Military powers vested in the Proprietary according to 
the provisions of the Charter as well as those of the palatinate 
government seem to have been granted for defensive pur- 
poses only. The Proprietor was captain general of the 
colonial army and could sunmion the inhabitants for the 
defense of the province. He could declare and exercise 
martial law, in all cases of rebellion, sudden tumult or sedi- 
tion. None of these rights were to conflict with the mihtary 
establishment of the mother country. The unlimited 
rights of war and peace are the peculiar privileges of the 
supreme power. Consequently the military rights of the 
colonials were a part of the sovereign dominion of the 
crown. The mihtary power in the colony was accordingly 
very properly limited to the protection of the province and 
was given merely to meet a state of actual hostility to it, 
arising either from rebellion, invasion or warlike array 
against it.^^ 

One more aspect of the Charter remains to be considered, 
namely, the financial or commercial. The Charter of Mary- 
land was such that it was exalted above every other by its 
commercial privileges and exemptions.^^ The colonists were 

'" Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, Note, pp. 36-7. 
"The religious rights of the Proptietary are discussed with clearness and 
abihty by Bishop Russell, op. cil., pp. 56 et seq. 
-2 McMahon, op. cil., p. 160. 
» Ibid., p. 162. 



14 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

enabled by it to export all articles grown or produced within 
the province to any of the ports of England or Ireland, sub- 
ject only to the customs and impositions paid in similar 
cases by the inhabitants of England. The proprietary 
possessed full and absolute power of establishing the ports 
of entry and discharge for the commerce of the colony, and 
to invest them with any rights and privileges that he deemed 
expedient. Contributions from the people were made in the 
form of taxes, license money, fines and forfeitures. These 
were to be levied for military protection, for the pay of civil 
officers, for the erection of public buildings, for the making 
of pubhc improvements, etc.'^ The King by the Charter 
bound himself and his successors to lay no taxes, customs, 
subsidies, or contributions whatever upon the colonists." 
The Proprietary also had the power of alienating, selUng or 
renting the land granted to him and his descendants by the 
Charter. 

Under the financial aspect of the Charter arises the question 
as to whether Lord Baltimore had the right to coin money, a 
prerogative of sovereignty. Though this is not expressly 
mentioned in the document, he had this right as Proprietor 
of a palatinate.-^ Whether Calvert used it is not certain. 
M. F. Howley, in his Ecclesiastical History of Newfoundland,-'' 
gives an interesting account of the discovery of a coin at 
Waterville, Me., in June, 1880. He ascribes the Waterville 
Penny to Lord Baltimore's colony of Avalon, though he 
admits that the coin may belong to the Avalon of Somerset- 
shire, England. Browne affirms that Baltimore in 1659 had 
dies cut for various denominations of currency. It is most 
probable, however, that coins were never used and that 
tobacco, from the first, remained almost the sole currency 
of the Province.^* 



^ Mereness, op. cil., p. 339. 

2' Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate, p. 20. 
'" Osgood, The Proprietary Province as a Form oj Colonial Government, 
article in American Historical Review, Vol. ii, pp. 644 el seq. 
=' Howley, Ecclesiastical History oJ Newfouiidland, pp. 87-9. 
" Browne, op. cit., p. 114. 



THE MARYLAND CHARTER 15 

Such then is the Maryland Charter in brief outline. It 
gave the Proprietary extraordinary powers that might have 
proved oppressive to the colonists in the hands of a man less 
wise, just, and humane than Cecilius Calvert, who knew how 
to use them in the manner best fitted to attain the pur- 
poses for which the province was founded. ' ' Though often 
attacked," remarks Browne,^' "and at times held in abey- 
ance, the charter was never revoked, and was only cast off 
when the arbitrary power of England had violated its 
pledges, and the people of Maryland, having outgrown their 
minority, were ready to take the sovereignty into their own 
hands." 



" IHd., p. 20. 



CHAPTER III 
Preparations for the Voyage to Maryland 

Since Lord Baltimore's colonization project was chiefly to 
secure religious toleration for the oppressed of every faith, 
it is necessary to have a knowledge of the religious state of 
affairs in England which led to the formation of his plan to 
secure this end. George Calvert, the First Lord Baltimore, 
to whom is due the credit of conceiving this idea, was born 
in 1580, and became a Cathohc in 1624. At the time of his 
conversion, James I, the first of the Stuart line, still occupied 
the throne. 

On his accession, this monarch had been inclined to grant 
partial indulgence to his Catholic subjects. He owed it to 
their sufferings in the cause of his unfortunate mother, 
Mary Queen of Scots, and he had bound himself by promises 
to their envoys. But his secret wishes were opposed by his 
advisers, and, if he was ashamed to violate his word, he 
dreaded offending his Protestant subjects. At last, he com- 
promised by drawing a distinction between their creed and 
the persons of the petitioners. To every prayer for the 
exercise of that worship, he returned a prompt and definite 
refusal. However, he invited Catholics to frequent his 
court and conferred on several the honors of knighthood. 
He even promised to shield them from the penalties of 
recusancy, as long as by their loyal and peaceable conduct 
they should deserve the royal favor.' 

The Puritans relied with equal confidence on the good-will 
of their sovereign. Their first petitions were couched in 
submissive language. But they gradually assumed a bolder 
attitude and demanded a thorough "reformation " both of the 
clergy and the liturgy. The king was irritated, perhaps 
alarmed ; but he preferred conciliation to severity, and invited 
four of the leading clergymen of their persuasion to a con- 
ference at Hampton Court. 



' Lingard, History oj England, Vol. vii, p. 15. 

16 



PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 17 

Though the result of this conference disappointed the 
expectations of the non-conformists, they did not despair 
of bettering their condition ; but the king, on the presentation 
of a petition in their favor, spoke of them with bitterness, 
which showed how little they had to hope for. It was, he 
said, to a similar petition that the rebelHon in the Nether- 
lands owed its origin: both his mother and he had been 
haunted by "Puritan devils" from their cradles; but he 
would hazard his very crown to suppress such malicious 
spirits; and not Puritans only, but also Papists, whom he 
hated so cordially that, if he thought it possible for his son 
and heir to grant them toleration in the time to come, he 
should fairly wish to see the young prince at that moment 
lying in his grave.- It was decided in the Star-Chamber that 
attempts to move the sovereign in matters of religion were to 
be construed as acts tending to sedition and rebelUon. Orders 
were consequently is ued to the judges and magistrates to 
enforce to the utmost the penal laws against non-conformists 
and recusants. 

A law was passed in the first year of the reign of James L 
confirming the statutes of Ehzabeth, and enacting, "that the 
two-thirds of the estates seized should be retained after the 
convict's death, until all arrea; s of the penalties are paid, and 
then dehvered over to the heir, provided he be no recusant. 
The one-third, however, left for his support, is not to be 
liable to seizure for the penalties. Persons going bej'ond the 
sea, to any Jesuit .seminary, or not returning within one year 
after the end of the next session of parliament, were rendered 
as it respects themselves, incapable of purchasing or enjoying 
any lands or goods, etc. Women also and children under 
twenty-one, are restrained from passing over the seas 
without license from the king, or six of his Privy Council. 
The penalty of one hundred pounds, levied by 27 Eliz. c. 2. 
on those who send any cliild, or other person under their 
obedience, out of the realm, during her life, is here made 



'Ibid., pp. 17-8. 



18 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

perpetual. Persons likewise, who keep school, otherwise 
than in some university, public grammar-school, or in the 
houses of noblemen or gentlemen, not being recusant, without 
leave from the bishop, together with those who retain or 
maintain them, forfeit forty shillings for every day they so 
wittingly offend. The one half of these fines is for the king, 
the other for the informer." ' 

In 1605, the "discovery" of the Gunpowder Plot involved 
the Catholics in fresh troubles. "To a thinking mind," 
says Lingard, "the late conspiracy must have proved the 
danger and impohcy of driving men to desperation by the 
punishment of religious opinion. But the warning was lost ; 
the existing enactments, oppressive and sanguinary as they 
were, appeared too indulgent; and though justice had been 
satisfied by the death and execution of the guilty, revenge 
and fanaticism sought out additional victims among the 
innocent." '' A new code of laws was accordingly drawn up. 
It repealed none of the laws in force but added to their 
severity by two new bills containing more than seventy 
articles inflicting penalties on the Catholics. 

Lingard gives us a digest of this legislation as follows: 
"1. Catholic recusants were forbidden, under particular 
penalties, to appear at court, to dwell within the boundaries, 
or ten miles of the boundaries, of the city of London, or to 
remove on any occasion more than five miles from their 
homes, without a special license under the signatures of four 
neighboring magistrates. 2. They were made incapable of 
practicing in surgery or physic, or in the common or civil 
law; of acting as judges, clerks, or officers in any court or 
corporation ; of presenting to the livings, schools, or hospitals 
in their gift; or of performing the offices of administrators, 
executors, or guardians. 3. Husbands and wives, unless 
they had been married by a Protestant minister, were made 
to forfeit every benefit to which he or she might otherwise 
be entitled from the property of the other; unless their 

' Madden, The History of the Penal Laws enacted against Roman Catholics 
pp. 169-170. 

• Lingard, op. cit., p. 45. 



PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 19 

children were baptized by a Protestant minister within a 
month after the birth, each omission subjected them to a 
fine of one hundred pounds ; and, if after death they were not 
buried in a Protestant cemetery, their executors were liable 
to pay for each corpse the sum of twenty pounds. 4. Every 
child sent for education beyond the sea, was from that 
moment debarred from taking any benefit by devise, descent, 
or gift, until he should return and conform to the established 
church, all such benefit being assigned by law to the Protes- 
tant next of kin. 5. Every recusant was placed in the same 
situation as if he had been excommunicated by name; his 
house might be searched, his books and furniture, having or 
thought to have any relation to his worship or religion, might 
be burnt, and his horses and arms might be taken from him at 
any time by order of the neighboring magistrates. 6. All 
the existing penalties for absence from church were con- 
tinued, but with two improvements: (a) It was made optional 
in the king, whether he would take the fine of twenty pounds 
per lunar month, or in lieu of it, all the personal, and two- 
thirds of the real estate ; and (6) Every householder, of what- 
ever relig'on, receiving Catholic visitors, or keeping Catholic 
servants, was liable to pay for each individual ten pounds per 
lunar month." ^ 

Throughout the reign of James I, the condition of Catholics 
was deplorable. The king himself might have bettered it 
had he the courage and the power to do so. In every political 
crisis and in any pubUc excitement, Parliament was con- 
stantly clamoring for new edicts against the Catholics.^ 

The penal enactments during his reign were five: 

An Act for the due execution of the statutes against 
Jesuits, seminary priests, recusants, &c. 

An Act for the better discovering and repressing of 
popish recusants. 

An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which may 
grow by popish recusants. 



' Ibid., p. 46. 

« Madden, op. cil., p. 180. 



20 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

An Act to cause persons to be naturalized or 
restored in blood, to conform and take the oath of 
allegiance and supremacy. 

An Act for the reformation of married recusant 
women, and administration of the oath of allegiance 
to all civil, military, ecclesiastical and professional 
persons.' 

Charles I succeeded James in 1625. Had he been left to 
follow the dictates of his naturally easy-going temperament, 
he would have been averse to persecution. Moreover, his 
marriage to Henrietta Maria, a Catholic, would have 
induced him to measures of justice towards those of her 
conmiunion. But the increasing insolence of the Puritan 
fanatics, their constant accusations against him of favoring 
Catholics, induced him to make at least a pretense of enforc- 
ing the penal laws.^ 

"There is one thing," says Madden, "that ought to be 
borne in mind, in considering the persecution of the Catholics 
in those times — all the Stuarts were averse to the furious 
measures of their Parliaments against Catholics. They 
thought, as Charles the First especially did, according to 
Hume, 'that a httle humanity was due by the nation to the 
rehgion of their ancestors.' Extreme rage against Roman 
Catholics was, from the first to last, the true characteristic 
of Puritanism, we are told by the same historian, and that 
rage was the only public interest that could be said to be 
truly represented in any Parliament of James, his son, or his 
grand-children." ^ 

Such were the religious conditions about the time that 
Lord Baltimore decided to found an entirely new colony 
which should be a refuge for those of his own faith, which he 
should build up from the foundations, and where his quasi- 
royal rule would shelter Catholics from the operations of the 
penal statutes and the persecutions of fanaticism.'" Nor did 
he confine his plan of toleration to those of his own creed, for 



' Ibid. 

' Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 19. 
' Madden, op. cit., p. 186. 
"• Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, p. 28. 



PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 21 

Calvert brought over settlers without regard to their reUgious 
opinions, making Maryland a home for all, a refuge to men 
who fled from the persecution aUke of those who upheld the 
Church of England and those who while fugitives from that 
very persecution, were re-enacting it with fearful severity.'' 
Aside from the fact that Maryland was the first of the pro- 
prietary governments, the colony is especially remembered in 
American history as the first in which religious toleration 
had a place. 

The Maryland Charter had been granted to Cecilius 
Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, on June 20, 1632, and 
he had at once taken measures to send an expedition to occupy 
his newly acquired territory. To assemble sufficient men 
for the project of colonization and to equip them with all 
necessaries for the voyage and for habitation in so distant a 
country as yet a wilderness occupied much time. Added to 
this, the Virginians caused further delay by their opposition 
to the Charter. The planters of Virginia were led to suppose 
that the soil upon which they trod was to be transferred to 
others. Accordingly a petition was drawn up in the name 
of the planters, and in May, 1633, laid before the king, in 
which they remonstrated "that some Grants have lately been 
obtained of a great proportion of Lands and Territorys 
within the lymitts of the Colonie there being the places of 
their Traffique, and so near to their habitations, as will give 
a generall disheartning to the Planters if they be divided 
into severall Governments, and a Barre to that Trade, which 
they have long exercised towards their Supportation and 
rehefe under the confidence of his Majesty's royall and 
gracious intentions towards them." ''^ 

The king referred the consideration of this matter to the 
Privy Council. On June 4, of the same year, the council 
framed an order, in wliich they appointed the 28th of that 
month, when the business should be heard and interested 
persons might attend. This being done, it was ordered that 
Lord Baltimore and those who championed the cause of the 

" Shea, Maryland and the Controversies as to her Early History, in American 
Catholic Quarterly Review, Vol. x, p. 658. 
'* /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 21. 



22 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

planters should meet and settle their controversy in a 
friendly manner. Their propositions were to be committed 
to writing and presented to their lordships on July 3, 1633. 
This order was complied with and it was finally ruled that it 
was fit "to leave the Lord Baltimore to his Patent and the 
other Partie to the course of Lawe according to their desire; 
but for the preventing of further questions their Lordshipps 
did also think fit and order that things standing as they doe, 
the Planters on either side shall have free traffique and com- 
merce each with other, and that neither parte shall receive 
any fugitive persons belonging to the other, nor doe any Act 
which may drawe a warre from the Natives upon either of 
thein; and lastly that they shall sincerely enterteine all good 
correspondence and assist each other on all occasions, in such 
manner as becometh fellow-subjects and members of the 
same state." " However, this did by no means put an end 
to the annoyance from Virginia which was destined to last for 
many years and which was to reach its acute stage through the. 
action of William Clayborne, a name that fills a conspicuous 
page in the early annals of the Maryland colony. The part 
played by Thomas Cornwaleys in helping to settle difficulties 
will be recounted in a subsequent chapter. 

The summer and autumn of 1633 were spent in prepara- 
tions on the part of Lord Baltimore for his new plantation. 
Finding that his presence was required in England to look 
after important business connected with his plantation, 
Cecilius Calvert reluctantly gave up the leadership of the 
enterprise, trusting "by the grace of God" to be in Maryland 
in the following year.'^ It was imperative that he remain in 
England since it was ever necessary to guard the privileges 
of his Charter in the troubled years that en ued; and the 
Proprietary of Maryland never saw his distant province. 
He accordingly appointed his brother, Leonard Calvert, 
to the governorship of Maryland, a younger brother, George 
Calvert, accompanying the expedition.'^ 



" Ihid. ; also Bozman, History of Maryland, Vol. Ii, p. 24. 

" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 134. 

" Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 16. 



PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 23 

Enemies of the colonial project were ever on the alert to 
hinder Lord Baltimore's plans. Rumors were carried to the 
Privy Council that he intended to carry nuns over into Spain 
and also soldiers to serve the Spanish sovereign. When the 
Council laughed at these stories, the Attorney-General was 
induced "to make an information in the Star Chamber" that 
the vessels carrying the colonists had departed without 
proper custom house papers and in contempt of all authority, 
the emigrants abusing the king's officers and refusing to take 
the Oath of Allegiance. ^^ 

On October 19, 1633, Lord Coke, the British Secretary of 
State, informed Admiral Pennington that the Ark of which 
Richard Lowe was master, carrying men for Lord Baltimore 
to his new plantation, had sailed contrary to orders, the com- 
pany not having taken the oath of allegiance. He was 
accordingly instructed to have the Ark and the Dove brought 
back. After the vessels were anchored near Gravesend, 
they were visited by Edward Watkins, the London Searcher, 
who administered the Oath of Allegiance to all whom he 
found on board. 

Upon his return from this duty Watkins made the fol- 
lowing report to the Privy Council : 

According to your Lordship's order of the 25th 
day of this instant month of October, I have been 
at Tillbury Hope where I found a ship and pinnace 
belonging to the Right Honorable Cecil Lord Balti- 
more, where I offered the oath of allegiance to all and 
every the persons aboard, to the number of 128, who 
took the same, and inquiring of the master of the ship 
whether any more persons were to go the said voy- 
age, he answered that some few others were shipped 
who had forsaken the ship and given over the voyage, 
by reason of the stay of said ships." 

That Thomas Cornwaleys took the oath of allegiance 
seems beyond doubt. He was one of the most prominent 
men of the expedition and in all probability on the Ark when 
the oath was tendered. Whether it was lawful for a Catholic 



'^ Browne, op. cil., p. 41 ; also Steiner, op. cil., p. 19. 
" Scharf, History of Maryland, pp. 67-8. 



24 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

to take the Oath was a much mooted question at the time. 
Those who held that the Oath contained matter objectionable 
to CathoHc behef had the better of the argument. However, 
since the question was not finally decided, we cannot censure 
Cornwaleys for taking the Oath when asked to do so.'* 

Whilst the ships were still lying in Cowes harbor at the 
Isle of Wight, Lord Baltimore, on November 13, 1G33, sent 
a list of Instructions to Leonard Calvert, Jei'ome Hawley 
and Thomas Cornwaleys, for the government of the expedi- 
tion during the voyage and upon their arrival at their destina- 
tion.'^ The letter reveals the wisdom of Cecilius Calvert. 
That religious toleration was uppermost in his mind is 
evident from the opening paragraph. The first "Instruc- 
tion" is couched in this language: 

I. Inpri: His Lopp requires his said Governor and 
Commissioners that in their voyage to Mary Land 
they be very careful to preserve unity and peace 
amongst all the passengers on Shipp-board, and that 
they suffer no scandall nor offence to be given to any 
of the Protestants, whereby any just Complaint may 
heereafter be made by them, in Virginea or in Eng- 
land, and that for that end they Cause all Acts of 
Romane Catholique Religion to be done as privately 
as may be, and that they instruct all the Romane 
Catholiques to be silent upon all occasions of dis- 
course concerning matters of Religion; and that the 
said Governor and Commissioners treate the 
Protestants wth as much mildness and favor as 
Justice will permit. And this to be observed at 
Land as well as at Sea. 

The instructions that followed are not without interest. 
Dihgent inquiry was to be made among the sailors and pas- 
sengers to ascertain what they knew concerning the plots of 
his Lordship's adversaries to overthrow his voyage. They 
should find out the names and actions of any concerned in 
the plots together with all the circumstances. Any infor- 
mation gotten on the voyage or after their arrival in the colony 

" For the text of the Oath of Allegiance, ef. Russell, op. cit., pp. 529-30. 
For an account of the controversy on the Oath, cf . Dodd, Church History of 
England, Vol. iv; also Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Oath of AUegiance," pp. 
177 el seq. 

" The complete letter is to be found in the Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 131 
et seq. 



PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYU^ND 



2.T 



was to be sent in writing to the Proprietary by a trusty 
messenger "in the next shipps that returne for England." 

Upon their arrival at the coast of Virginia, they are not to 
go to Jamestown or to Point Comfort ' ' unless they should be 
forct unto it by some extremity of weather (which God 
forbidd) for the preservation of their lives and goodes, and 
that they find it altogether impossible otherwise to preserve 
themselves." They were to inquire upon arrival if anyone 
could guide them to the "Bay of Che.sapeacke " and "Patta- 
womeck River" in order to find a proper place for their 
settlement. 

Whilst engaged in looking for an appropriate location, they 
were directed to send a trustworthy messenger, who should 
be a member of the Church of England to carry the royal 
instructions to the Governor and Council of Virginia. This 
messenger was also to take a personal letter from Baltimore 
to Sir John Harvey in which he expressed his regret that he 
could not come personally to Maryland till the next year. 
He desired a "good correspondency" with him and the Plan- 
tation of Virginia. He furthermore assures Harvey of his 
particular affection to his person by reason of the reports 
of his worth, and for the kind letters Harvey sent the Pro- 
prietary since he heard of Baltimore's intention to become his 
neighbor. 

With respect to Claiborne, Baltimore's policy was shrewd 
and peaceable. As soon as convenient, a man of the Church 
of England was to take a letter to him, notifying him of the 
arrival of the colonists, and of the authority over the province 
committed to Leonard Calvert, Hawley and Cornwaleys, and 
inviting him to speak with them on business of importance. 
If Claiborne agrees to meet the Maryland authorities he is 
to be courteously received and to be assured of Baltimore's 
willingness to give all the encouragement he can to proceed in 
the plantation that he had settled within his Lordship's 
precincts. In case Claiborne does not accept the invitation, 
he is not to be disturbed for the first year, until the Pro- 
prietary can give further instructions. Meanwhile the colon- 
ists are to keep informed as to the progress of his plantation 
and his designs, and furthermore his strength and his cor- 



26 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

respondence with Virginia. They are also to keep posted 
as to the manner in which the Virginians view the Maryland 
Charter. 

The other portions of the letter concern the colonists them- 
selves. Upon their choice of a plantation his Majesty's 
letters patent are to be publicly read before the people, after 
which, his Lordship's Commission was to be laid before them. 
Either the Governor or one of the Commissioners is to declare 
his Lordship's intentions which are: The honor of God to be 
secured by the conversion of the savages to Christianity, the 
extension of his Majesty's domains, to provide for the success 
and comfort of those who have made great sacrifices to plant 
the colony. Finally an oath of allegiance is to be adminis- 
tered to all to give public assurance of their fidelity and 
allegiance to his Majesty. 

The colonists are to provide a suitable place for a fort. 
Near tliis is to be built a house for the Governor or other 
Commissioners with a church or chapel adjacent. The 
planters are to receive a proper allotment of land whereon to 
build their homes. These are to be built uniformly and as 
near to the others as possible. Streets are to be marked off. 
An account of this is to be sent to Lord Baltimore so that he 
may be satisfied that justice had been done to every man. 
Military protection is provided for by the training and 
drilling of men at stated times. 

"Li this interesting document," says Browne,-" "we see 
the principles of Baltimore's policy, and the germs of the 
polity of Maryland. Rehgious toleration, 'unity and peace' 
between members of different faiths, began on the Ark and 
Dove. Whether we attribute it to wise policy, to the cogency 
of circumstances, or to a hberal and tolerant spirit, in ad- 
vance of his age, on the part of the proprietary, the fact 
remains the same that equal justice and Christian charity to 
both Catholic and Protestant was the key-note of his rule 
. . . No one, we think, can read these instructions without 
seeing that they proceed from a wise, just and generous 
man." 

2» Browne, op. cil., p. 57. 



CHAPTER IV 

The Settlement of Maryland 

After the colonists left Gravesend, where they seem to 
have been detained for several weeks, the Ark and the Dove 
took on board among others two Jesuit Fathers, Andrew 
White and John Altham. The personnel of the party being 
complete with the arrival of these, we can now consider the 
number of the passengers on the two ships. And this can- 
not be stated with any estimate approaching exactitude. 
Lord Baltimore wrote to Lord Wentworth before the depar- 
ture that besides his two brothers, "very near twenty other 
gentlemen of very good fasliion" had accompanied the 
expedition.' 

Cecilius Calvert in the "Conditions of Plantation" pub- 
hshed in a work entitled A Relation of Maryland,- gives 
a list containing "The names of the Gentlemen adventurers 
that are gone in person to this Plantation " : Leonard Calvert, 
the Governor; George Calvert, his Lordship's brothers; 
Jerome Hawley, Esq., Thomas Cornwaleys, Esq., the Com- 
missioners; Richard Gerard, son to Sir Thomas Gerard, 
Knight and Baronet; Edward Win tour, Frederick Win tour, 
sonnes of the Lady Anne Wintour; Henry Wiseman, son to 
Sir Thomas Wiseman, Knight; John Saunders, Edward 
Cranfield, Henry Greene, Nicholas Ferfax, John Baxter, 
Thomas Dorrell, Captaine John Hill, John Madcalfe, 
William Saire." 

Besides these gentlemen many others went along as is 
evident. The London Searcher mentioned in the last 
chapter reported that about one hundred and twenty-eight 
had taken the Oath of Allegiance. This number was added 



' Radcliffe, Letters and Dispatches of Thomas Wentworth Strafford, Vol. i, 
pp. 178-9. 

^ A Relation of Maryland, edited by Francis L. Hawks, p. 65. This work 
must not be confounded with Father White's Relalio Itineris in Marylandiam, 
nor with A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland {Calvert Papers, No. 
III). In our notes, when referring to Father White's work, the word "Relatio" 
is used, while in referring to the other, "A Brief Relation" is used. 

27 



28 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

to when they left Gravesend so that it was brought up to 
three hundred.' 

Richardson, in Side-Lights on Maryland History,'' mentions 
some of the party that travelled on the Ark, and others that 
went on the Dove. On the former were the following: 
Leonard Calvert; the Commissioners, Hawley and Corn- 
waleys; Richard Lowe, Master of the Ark, John Bowlter, 
Purser; Richard Edwards, Surgeon; on the latter: Captain 
Win tour, conunander of the Dove ; Richard Orchard, Master 
of the Dove; Samuel Lawson, mate; John Games, gunner; 
Richard Kenton, boatswain; John Curke and Nicholas 
Parrie, of the crew. 

There are two accounts of the voyage of the ships to Mary- 
land. One of these is the Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam 
of Father White, written towards the end of April, 1634, to 
the General of the Society of Jesus, Mutius Vitellesetis ; the 
other is entitled A Brief e Relation of the Voyage unto Mary- 
land authenticated by Leonard Calvert himself, and sent 
to England on the return of the Ark} 

On the twenty-second of the month of November, 
in the year 1633, being St. Cecilia's Day (Friday), we 
set sail from Cowes, in the Isle of Wight . . . after 
committing the principal parts of the ship to the 
protection of God especially, and of his most Holy 
Mother, and St. Ignatius, and all the guardian angels 
of Maryland.^ 

The voyagers soon encountered stormy weather in which 
the Dove was driven from her sister-ship and was not seen 
again for six weeks, the crew of the Ark thinking all the while 
that "shee had assuredly beene foundered and lost in those 
huge seas." Sweeping around by the Barbadoes and other 
West India Islands, the two vessels which had joined com- 
pany, gUded peacefully at last between the capes into the 
bay which Spanish navigators named in honor of the Mother 



^ Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 72; also Browne, George and 
Cecilius Calvert, p. 45. 
* Pages 8-9. 

' The Calvert Papers, No. in, pp. 26 el seq. 
« A Brief Relation, p. 28. 



THE SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND 29 

of God, but which was to bear the Indian name of Chesa- 
peake.' 

Leonard Calvert, writing to Sir Richard Lechford,^ states 
that they arrived in Virginia on February 27, where they 
remained for eight or nine days to land some passengers and 
to deliver the King's letters to Governor Harvey. The 
Relation^ confesses that the landing was "much contrary" 
to the Lord Proprietary's instructions. The reason for so 
doing is not apparent unless it be that they had some presage 
that the attitude of the Virginians was not so hostile as 
anticipated by Cecilius Calvert. Harvey received them 
very courteously though against the will of liis council. 
The Relation also states that Captain Claiborne was there 
from whom they understood that the Indians were prepared 
to resist the colonists, having heard that six Spanish ships 
were coming to destroy them. The author then remarks 
that "the rumour was most Hke to have begunne from 
himselfe." '» 

Calvert now proceeded up the bay to the territory em- 
braced within his Charter. Near the Island of St. Clement 
they came to anchor. ' ' On the day of the Annunciation of 
the Most Holy Virgin Mary in the year 16.34," writes 
Father White, "we celebrated the mass for the first time, on 
this island. This had never been done before in this part of 
the world. After we had completed the sacrifice, we took 
upon our shoulders a great cross, which we had hewn out of a 
tree, and advancing in order to the appointed place, with the 
assistance of the Governor and his associates and the other 
Cathohcs, we erected a trophy to Christ the Saviour, humbly 
reciting on our bended knees, the Litanies of the Sacred 
Cross, with great emotion." " 

With what fervor Cornwaleys and his associates must 
have assisted at the celebration of the holy Sacrifice ! Many 

' Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the United States, Vol. i, p. 41. 

* Calvert Papers, No. iii, p. 20. 

' A Brief Relation, p. 38. 
'» Ibid. 

" Relatio, p. 33. The Litany of the Holy Cross is to be found in The 
Catholic World, Vol. 39, p. 41. 



30 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

a prayer went up to heaven for the success of their colonial 
project. With enthusiasm thej^ erected the sign of salvation 
to declare to the bystanders and to posterity as well, in this 
act, that Christ was to reign in Maryland. It was to remain 
a sign of good will towards all. Religious toleration was to 
find a realization. The oppressed in conscience were here to 
find a refuge. Here was erected the first altar to reUgious 
liberty on this continent; and the fires first kindled on it 
ascended to heaven an^d the blessings of the savage.'- 

With the rehgious rites just mentioned began the acts 
of the settlers in their own land. The Governor's next step 
was to establish friendly relations with the tribes of the 
locality. Hearing that the chief of Piscataway had a sort of 
suzerainty over the other Indians, he resolved to meet him 
to declare to him the objects of his expedition. Saihng up 
the Potomac he first came to a town, where a werowance, or 
king, lived. This chief was but a child, and his uncle Archichu 
acted as regent. Archichu received them with marks of 
kindness, and at their departure invited them to visit him 
again." 

Leaving these hospitable IncUans, Leonard Calvert pro- 
ceeded to Piscataway, the seat of the emperor, where five 
hundred bowmen came to meet them at the water side. The 
chieftain came on board the ship, where he was kindly 
received. Being assured of the friendly intentions of the 
colonists, he gave them leave to settle wherever they 
pleased." On this occasion, Captain Henry Fleete, an Eng- 
lishman, who hved among the Indians and was conversant 
with their language, acted as Calvert's interpreter.'* 

The Indians gradually lost their fear and awe of the 
colonists once they were convinced of their friendly attitude 



'^ McMahon, An Historical View of the Government of Maryland, p. 198. 

" A Brief Relation, p. 40. 

» Ibid. 

" Captain Fleete came to Virginia at an early age in life. He was captured 
by the Indians on the Potomac in 1623; remained a captive until 1627, during 
which time he became famihar with the Indian tongue. Later he became an 
interpreter, trader and legislator in Maryland. He finally settled at Fleet's 
Bay in Lancaster County, Virginia, and represented the County in the House of 
Burgesses, 1652. The date of his death is not recorded. Cf. Brown, Genesis 
of the United States, Vol. ii, p. 892. 



THE SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND 31 

towards them. In the quaint language of the period, the 
Relation chronicles that "the Indians began to lose their 
feare and come . . . sometimes aboard our sliipp, wonder- 
ing where that tree should grow, out of which so great a 
canow should be hewen, supposing it all of one piece, as 
their canows used to be, they trembled to heare our ordinance 
thinking them fearefuller then any thunder they had ever 
heard."'" 

Calvert, not finding a suitable location for a town, decided, 
upon his return to St. Clement's, to follow Fleete's advice 
and drop some nine leagues further down the Potomac to 
look for a site. Fleete was a very capable guide owing to his 
knowledge of the place and on account of his favor with the 
aborigines. The Governor had some apprehensions as to 
Fleete's attitude toward his colonial scheme, consequently he 
offered him a portion of the beaver trade in order to win his 
good-will. Accepting the offer, Fleete led Calvert's party to 
"a most convenient harbour, and pleasant Countrey lyinge 
on each side of it, with many large fields of excellent land 
cleared from all wood." '^ This place was on a river now 
known as the St. Mary's, four or five leagues from the mouth 
of the Potomac, and was known as the town of Yoacomico. 

Calvert was greatly pleased with the place and resolved 
upon an interview with the Indian chief. The "king of 
Yoacomaco" was accordingly offered "axes, hoes, cloth and 
hatchets" for the place. Accepting these, it was agreed that 
the colonists might live on one part of the town, the Indians 
surrendering to them their houses and some corn which they 
had planted. At the end of the harvest the savages were to 
give over the other portion of the village. The two parties 
also entered into a treaty to hve together in peace and 
harmony as long as they were neighbors.'* 

Thirty miles of ground were secured from the Indians at 
this time, and the high-sounding name of Augusta Carolina 



"Page 41. 

" Calvert Papers, No. iii, p. 21. 

" A Brief Relalion, p. 41. 



32 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

was given to it. This name was not much used however, and 
was soon superseded by the name of St. Mary's County. The 
town itself was given the name of St. Mary's." 

After the landing at St. Mary's fortifications were soon 
erected "sufficient to defend against any such weake enemies 
as we have reason to expect here. ' ' -" Streeter is of the opinion 
that this work was entrusted to Thomas Cornwaleys, the 
"Captain." In fact, the intrepidity and mihtary skill of 
Cornwalej's was such that he was at once made the leader of 
the armed forces of the colony, and his individuality was so 
distinctly established that, though there were others in the 
province who bore the same military title, it was only in 
alluding to him in particular that the title "the Captain" was 
used.2i 

Mindful of Cecilius Calvert's Instructions that they 
received before their departure from England, a ceremony 
was arranged in which the Charter was read, together with 
the Proprietary's commission. Then was also announced the 
intention of Calvert in founding the province, the conversion 
of the savages to Christianity, to extend the King's domin- 
ions, and to do all that can be done for the good of those who 
had given themselves and their fortunes to the project. The 
colonists also pledged their allegiance to the crown on this 
occasion. -- 

The settlers now set about building their houses. First 
in order was the building of a suitable abode for the Governor. 
Father White was not content to wait till a chapel was built, 
but immediately converted an Indian's habitation into a 
chapel which he dedicated to the service of God as the first 
chapel in Maryland.-' The planters built their houses close 
to one another, on regular streets, with gardens back of 
them. In accordance with the conditions of plantation 
which provided "that any Englishman who transported 



" Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 35. 

^"Calvert Papers, No. iii, p. 21. 

-' Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, pp. 125-6. 

'" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 136. 

" Relatio, p. 39. 



THE SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND 33 

f 

himself, properly equipped, which equipment was duly 
itemized and with transportation charges estimated at 
twenty pounds, should receiv^e for himself in freehold estate 
one hundred acres, with the same amount for his wife, fifty 
acres for each child above sixteen years of age, and fifty 
acres for each woman servant under the age of forty years, 
paying a quit-rent of twelve pence in the commodities of the 
country for every fifty acres. For each male servant be- 
tween the ages of sixteen and fifty years so transported, one 
hundred acres should be given on like conditions, while for 
every five men transported, the adventurer received not five 
hundred, but one thousand acres, to be erected into a manor 
with all the privileges of the English ones." -^ 

In the meantime the colonists lived on the most friendly 
terms with the Indians. They hunted together and enjoyed 
the fruit of the chase. The Indian women instructed the 
wives of the planters in the methods of cooking products of 
the soil with which the English were not familiar. The 
Indians cooperated with the colonists since both had to fear 
the incursions of the northern tribes who were not so well 
disposed and who were to give the colonists trouble of which 
we shall speak in a later chapter. 



^ Steiner, op. cit., pp. 40-L 



CHAPTER V 

CORNWALEYS AND KeNT IsLAND 

Affairs in the infant colony seemed to have reached a stage 
when the colonists could set about undisturbed to carry out 
the lofty purposes for which they had left the shores of their 
native land. They were free from Indian hostilities and, 
under the wise leadership of Leonard Calvert, success in their 
colonial enterprise was assured. Serious trouble, however, 
was to arise in a quarter from which they might have looked 
for nothing else than friendship and cooperation. 

The animosity of the Virginians seemed to increase as the 
prosperity of the INIaryland colony became more assured. 
The causes of Virginia's irritation were three — they were 
exasperated that the Maryland Charter comprised land that 
had once been included in their own; they looked with dis- 
trust and dislike on what they were pleased to call a popish 
settlement; and they were aggrieved that the Marylanders 
had the privilege of trade in foreign markets, which they did 
not enjoy.' 

To lodge a complaint on any of these scores seemed futile 
to them at the time. Should they be able to find a flaw in 
the Charter of Lord Baltimore, they thought that something 
might be done. We have seen how they registered an 
objection with the Privy Council against the Charter, but 
with no success. Despite this fact, they did not lose heart. 
Claiborne's claim to Kent Island was to become the bone of 
contention. As Browne remarks, "The trivial question 
whether a small and unprofitable trading-post should be held 
mediately or immediately under the King, served as the 
rallying-point for all the animosities of a generation ; and the 
territorial quarrel of Virginia and Maryland, the religious 
quarrel of Puritan and CathoUc, and the poUtical quarrel of 
Royalist and Roundhead, all gathered around the claim of 
Claiborne." ^ 



' Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate, p. 27. 
' Ibid., p. 28. 



34 



CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 35 

Claiborne had established his trading-post on Kent Island 
in the Chesapeake, but did not receive any grant of land or 
attempt to cultivate the soil. The undertaking was un- 
prosperous and a quarrel arose between him and Cloberry & 
Company, merchants of London, who financed Claiborne's 
trading venture, each casting the blame on the other. The 
Londoners asked Lord Baltimore for a grant of the land, 
intending to oust Claiborne. Calvert did not grant this 
request as he was desirous of gaining the good will of Clai- 
borne, if possible, to make a friend of one who might become 
a valuable member of his infant colony.' 

Governor Calvert was soon to find out that Claiborne was 
not to be conciliated. According to his instruction, the 
Governor informed Claiborne that Kent Island was in Mary- 
land territory. The latter (who did not reside on the Island 
but in Virginia) rose up in the council and asked what he was 
to do. The assembly informed him that they saw no reason 
why the island should be given up. They ad\ased him to do 
nothing for the present and recommended that a good under- 
standing should be kept up with the Maryland colonists. 
Governor Harvey tried to do all in his power to preserve 
friendly relations and even received orders to this effect from 
the King. But Harvey could do Uttle since a majority in 
council were ready to thwart every attempt to carry out these 
orders.^ 

On the 4th of September, 1634, Lord Baltimore directed a 
set of new instructions " to his brother, Leonard Calvert, and 
others, his Lordship's Commissioners for the Government of 
Mariland," of which, the eighth article alone is extant. It 
reads as follows : 

That if possibly they can, without notable prejudice 
to their owne CoUony, for want of sufficient strength 
to defend themselves, and that Capt. William 
Claiborne, at the arrivall of these Instructions, con- 
tinue his unlawful! courses and have not submitted 



' Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, p. 63. 
< Ibid., p. 64. 



36 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

himself unto his Lordship's Patent, they seize upon 
his person and detaine him close prisoner at St. 
Maries, upon that accusation against him in Capt. 
Fleete's examination, and that other they have since 
found against him; for which, his Lordship con- 
ceiveth by his former behaviors there will not be 
wanting cause enough on his parte. That they like- 
wise take possession if they can, of his Plantation, 
in the Isle of Kent, till upon notice given thereof, to 
his Lordship, they have further directions what to 
do with him.^ 

Before these instructions reached the colony, the Governor 
and Commissioners of Maryland lodged a complaint with the 
Governor and Council of Virginia charging Claiborne "with 
evil practises with the Indians, to the subversion of both 
colonies." On December 8th, the Commissioners were 
prepared to substantiate their charges. Their witnesses 
being examined at James City, the findings were transmitted 
to England. Claiborne could not be dealt with according to 
Baltimore's instructions owing to the strong sentiment in his 
favor in Virginia and that same colony's opposition to Alary- 
land.^ 

"Good correspondency" between the two colonies of 
Maryland and Virginia could not last long when one of the 
parties was bent on making trouble. The planters of 
Baltimore's palatinate soon found that the Indians were not 
as hospitable and friendly as was their wont. The cause was 
laid by Fleete at Claiborne's door. He accused the latter of 
trying to persuade the Indians that the Marylanders were not 
Englishmen but Spaniards bent upon the destruction of the 
English. One hesitates to believe that Claiborne would have 
instigated the Indians against men of his own race; and in 
justice to him it must be stated that when the Indians were 
questioned on the matter, it was imputed to Fleete that he 
had prevaricated. The affair was, however, reported to Lord 
Baltimore. Calvert sent out instructions that Claiborne was 
to be taken prisoner in case he continued hostilities, and 
possession was to be taken of Kent Island.' 

^ Streeter, Papers relaling to the Early History of Maryland, p. 111. 

s/fctd., pp. 111-2. 

' Browne, Maryland, etc., p. 32. 



CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 37 

Meanwhile the first session of the Assembly of Maryland 
was held on February 26, 1635, at which Thomas Corn- 
waleys was no doubt present. The acts of this Assembly 
with the exception of one have not come down to us. But, 
either as a result of action taken at its sessions or owing to the 
deliberation of the Commissioners, it was decided to have 
recourse to stringent measures to stop the unlicensed trading 
with the Indians within Maryland territory without a permit 
froni the Governor. 

On March 26, 1635, Claiborne sent Thomas Smith in the 
pinnace Longtail to trade for corn and furs. Smith alleged 
that he had letters patent from the King for Claiborne to 
trade in the colonies of America. On the 4th of April he 
arrived at Mattapany, on the Patuxent River, to trade in the 
neighborhood of St. Mary's. The next day he was met by 
Capt. Fleete and Capt. Humber who demanded liis license to 
trade. On presenting his papers, Fleete examined the same 
and said that they did not permit Claiborne to trade further 
than the Isle of Kent. Humber asserted that the permit was 
false. The two Captains thereupon took Smith and brought 
him to St. Mary's before Cornwaleys who was acting as 
deputy in the absence of Leonard Calvert. When Smith 
complained that his ship was seized, Cornwaleys told him 
that Fleete and Humber had done no more than they were 
ordered to do, namely, to stop all vessels they should find 
trading in the Province. Cornwaleys further stated that 
Smith's credentials were mere forgeries and at any rate 
covered merely Kent Island. After two days, Calvert 
returned and sent for Smith and his party at Cornwaley's 
house. The Governor decided to keep the vessel. He 
refused to allow the men to return to Kent Island though they 
might go to Virginia or to England. Smith refused the 
permission and said that the Kent Islanders were in need of 
corn. Calvert answered that this could not be. After 
waiting for four or five days without prospect of the release 
of the pinnace, Smith asked for a boat with which to return 
home. This request was denied but Calvert allowed him to 



38 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

arrange with the Indians for transportation and the Islanders 
were sent away with only one gun, the property of Smith, and 
without \'ictuals.* 

To retaliate for the loss of the Longtail, Claiborne im- 
mediately granted a warrant to Lieutenant Ratcliffe Warren 
to seize and capture any of the pinnaces or other vessels 
belonging to the government of St. Mary's. An armed boat 
was fitted out, manned with about thirty men from Kent 
Island under Warren's command. When Calvert heard of 
this, he equipped two vessels and sent them out under com- 
mand of Captain Thomas Cornwaleys. The two pinnaces 
were known as the St. Margaret and the St. Helen. Corn- 
waleys was ordered to proceed to Kent to put down the rising 
rebellion. During a cruise in the bay some of Claiborne's 
vessels were found trading without license. They were 
accordingly seized as lawful prizes. 

On the 2.3rd of April, 1635, an encounter took place 
between Warren's vessel, the Cockatrice and Cornwaleys' 
ships. The hostile craft met in the Pocomoke River. Here 
was fought the first naval battle upon the inland water.s of 
America.^ In the combat that followed, both sides suffered 
the loss of life. The casualty Ust comprises the following 
who were killed: William Ashmore, of Cornwaleys' party; 
Lieutenant Warren, John Belson, William Dawson and three 
others, of Claiborne's company.'" 

In the Proceedings of the Assembly," we find the following 
account of this event. 

then was the house moved by the Attorney to 
enquire of the death of william Ashmore, Ratcliffe 
warren, John Bellson, & william dawson, and the 
house having heard the evidence of Cyprian Through- 
good, John nevill, Cuthbert ffenwich & Edward ffleete 
did find that the said Ratcliffe warren, John Bellson, 
william dawson with divers others did assault the 
vessells of Capt. Thomas Cornwaleys & his company 
feloniously and as pyrates & robbers to take the said 



' Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 141 el seq. 

' Scharf, Hislory of Maryland, Vol. i, p. 109. 
'" Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 58. 
" / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 17. 



CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 39 

vessels ; and did discharge divers peices charged with 
bulletts & shott against the said Thomas Corn- 
waleys & his company; wherevpon & after such as- 
sault made the said Thomas Cornwaleys and his 
company in defence of themselved & safegard of their 
lives not being able to flie further from them after 
warning given to the assailants to desist from 
assaulting them at their owne perill, did discharge 
some gunnes vpon the said Ratcliffe warren and his 
company; of wch. shotts the said Ratcliff warren 
John Bellson, and william dawson died; and so they 
find that the said Tho: Cornwaleys & his company 
did lawfully & in their owne necessary defence kill 
the said Ratcliff warren John Bellson and william 
dawson; and doe acquitt the said Thomas Corn- 
waleys & his company of the death of the said 
Ratcliff warren John Bellson and william dawson. 

and they further find that the said Ratcliff warren, 
and his company did discharge their gunnes against 
the said Thomas Cornwaleys and his company and 
did kill the said william Ashmore being one of the 
company of the said Thomas Cornwaleys; as felons 
pyrates, and murthers. 

It does not appear that the surviving comrades of Warren 
were taken prisoners by Cornwaleys; — they probably re- 
turned with their wounded and dead to the Island of Kent, 
while he and his party continued their cruise down the bay.''^ 

On May 10, the Captain encountered, in the Great 
Wicomoco River, which was, in fact, within the boundaries of 
Virginia, another boat belonging to Kent Island, commanded 
by Smith, with which there was some collision, though no 
bloodshed ensued. After this, Cornwaleys' expedition re- 
turned to St. Mary's. '=' 

The attempt against Kent Island on the part of Corn- 
waleys was only partially successful. Claiborne succeeded 
in obtaining assistance in Virginia, where Harvey's govern- 
ment had been superseded by another, and, though much 
crippled by the action of the Marylanders, by his personal 
influence and effort, without aid from his partners in London, 
he succeeded for nearly three years in maintaining himself 

" Streeter, op. cit., p. 129. 
"Ibid. 



40 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

upon the Island, and in prosecuting an uncertain traffic with 
the natives, who were, in general, friendlj^ towards him." 

In May, 1637, a letter was directed by the Iving to the 
Commissioners for Foreign Plantations and all other royal 
officers. In this document were reviewed the grants of 
Avalon, in Newfoundland, and Maryland to the Lords 
Baltimore and the transportation of colonies to each province. 
Owing to the danger that some patents may be issued pre- 
judicial to Lord Baltimore's patents, Charles I, strictly 
orders that all applications for grants of land near either 
province be delayed, until the Proprietary should be notified. 
The King also announces his intention not to issue any writ 
for the overthrow of either the Charters of Avalon or Mary- 
land.'"' 

Late in the year 1636, Captain George Evelin arrived at 
Kent Island as agent and commander of the island. Evelin 
soon became a convert to the justice of Lord Baltimore's 
claims in regard to that place. The favorable disposition of 
the King, the complaisance of Evelin and the determination 
of the Proprietary to press matters soon determined the 
Governor to take decisive steps to subdue Kent Island and to 
put an end to the long-standing trouble that disturbed the 
peace and prosperity of his colonial domains. 

In November 1637, Governor Calvert wrote a letter to the 
inhabitants of Kent Island in which he promised a general 
pardon for past offenses if they would cease their opposition 
and submit to his government. He furthermore told them 
that he would appoint as their commander any one whom 
they would choose from among their number. Due to the 
influence of a brother-in-law of Claiborne, John Butler, and 
Thomas Smith, the islanders refused the offer. Hereupon 
Calvert appointed Evelin. Leonard Calvert now took twenty 
musketeers from St. Mary's under command of Capt. Corn- 
waleys. They intended to seize Butler and Smith and bring 
the rest to a better state of mind. Owing to adverse 

» Ibid., p. 131. 

'5 /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 5.5; also Steincr, op. cil., p. 71. 



CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 41 

weather conditions, Calvert was forced to abandon the 
expedition after remaining out a week.^^ Cornwaleys does 
not seem to have been in full harmony with Calvert on this 
occasion. This conclusion may be drawn from the opening 
lines of a letter of Cornwaleys to Cecilius Calvert, on April 
16, 1638. The Captain writes: 

I receaned yr. Letr. dated the 25: of May last for 
wch. and yr therein noblj' proffered favoures, I should 
before this time haue retourned humble thanks, had 
I not hoped in person toe haue kist yr. hands this 
yeere in England. But yr. Lops. Service and the 
pretended Good of Maryland, would not permit mee 
toe provide for my Journy, nor yet toe follow my 
owne affayres when my best diligence had beene 
most vrgently needefull for the Accomodating of 
them toe my best Advantage.'' 

In virtue of a commission dated December 30, 1637, 
directed to him at Kent Island, Captain Evelin was appointed 
Commander of the Island and its inhabitants, an office he 
held before from Cloberry & Co. He was constituted with 
authority to choose six or more efficient men of the place as 
his counsel. He was empowered to call a Court as often as 
occasion demanded and to determine any civil case in which 
not more than ten pounds sterling was involved in damages 
or demands, criminal cases to be decided to the extent of the 
jurisdiction of any justice of the peace in England, not 
extending to life and member. For the execution of justice 
and the conservation of the peace, he could appoint all 
necessary officers who were to receive the same fee as the 
officers of the same standing in Virginia."* 

After Evelin had received this commission, he came to 
Kent Island in company with Zachary Mottershead of Marj— 
land, who brought with him the Patent of Maryland which 
was to be read to them. John Butler then demanded if 
Evelin were an agent for Cloberry & Co., or for the Mary- 
landers. Evelin answered that he was agent for both. He 



'^ Calverl Papers, No. i, p. 182. 

" Steiner, op. cit., p. 71 (note). This letter is to be found in Calvert Papers, 
No. I, p. 169. 

'* /// — Archives of Maryland, p. 59. 



42 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

further stated that he himself had spoken against the Mary- 
land Charter and held Claiborne's commission "firm and 
good against the same, and that the Marylanders had nothing 
to doe with the lie of Kent." He also declared that he had 
seen the Patent of Lord Baltimore and recognized his rights 
"that he was formerly mistaken and overseene as he per- 
ceived now they were, but he liimselfe now understood it 
better." " He then told them that it was better to live under 
Lord Baltimore's government and enjoy the advantages of 
trade which they could not enjoy under Virginia. Clai- 
borne's patent, he assured them, gave him Ucense to trade in 
Nova Scotia and New England but not in the Chesapeake.-" 
The same day that Leonard Calvert issued his commission 
to Evelin, Thomas Cornwaleys was given the following 
license to trade: 

Know all persons whom it concerneth, that I have 
& hereby give free Liberty and License to Thomas 
Cornwallis Esqr: and one of the Council of this 
Province to trade with any the Indians of this 
Province for corne or Roanoke or peake, and the 
same to utter and Sell to any of the Inhabitants of 
this Province, and no further or otherwise, this 
License to endure until I shall signifie the Contrary. 
In Witness whereof I have hereunto Set my hand and 
Seal this 30th of December 1637. 

Leonard Calvert.-' 

On February 17, 1637, a proclamation was issued signed 
by Leonard Calvert, Jerome Hawley and John Lewger for an 
expedition to the Isle of Kent. In the document it is stated 
that the inhabitants had committed many piracies, in- 
solences, mutinies and contempts against the government. 
Warrants were issued against malefactors which were dis- 
regarded. Even prisoners were forcibly rescued from the 
hands of the law by the people. Worst of all, they were 



" V— Archives of Maryland, CounHl, pp. 185, 20.3, 209, 218. 

2" Ihid., pp. 196, 203, 218. Calvert'.s commission is dated in the month of 
December. The Archives state that this event took place in November. 
Furthermore the commission is also referred to as having been given in 
November. Cf. Letter of Leonard Calvert to his brother, in Calvert Papers, 
No. I, p. 182. 

21 /// — Archives, p. 57. 



CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 43 

conspiring with the Indians against the Marylanders. It was 
therefore decided that the Governor sail against them with a 
sufficient number of armed men under the leadership of 
Captain Cornwaleys to reduce the inhabitants to subjection 
by martial law and even to punish the offenders by death if 
need be.^^ 

A letter of Leonard Calvert to the Proprietary dated April 
25, 1638, describes the taking of Kent Island.-' He states 
that thirty choice musketeers formed the miUtary party. 
Smith and Boteler were taken prisoner. Calvert then 
issued a proclamation of a general anuiesty for all the in- 
habitants provided they submitted to the Maryland govern- 
ment within twenty-four hours. This the prople consented 
to do. Calvert thereupon assured them of his intention to 
do all that he could for their well-being, provided they 
deserved such treatment. Whilst at the Island, the 
Governor held court and heard divers cases between the 
settlers. At the end of its session, he assembled the inhabi- 
tants to make choice of their delegates to the Assembly 
which was to be held at St. Mary's for the making of laws- 
Before Calvert departed he told the islanders that any man 
that held or wished to acquire land should take out a patent 
for the same under the seal of the Province. He promised 
to come the next summer with Mr. Lewger who was to 
survey the land and give them the grants reserving only such 
rents and services to the Proprietary as the law of the 
pro\'ince should appoint. 

At a session of the Assembly on March 14, 1637, an Act 
of Attainder against Wilham Claiborne was introduced. 
The bill for the same was read a second time on the follow- 
ing day, and on March 16 [the bill] was passed.'-^ As a 
result, all the property of Claiborne within the Province 
became forfeited to the Lord Proprietor.^* 

On March 14, 1637, began the trial of Thomas Smith. He 
was indicted on a charge of piracy. After hearing the evi- 

22 Ibid., p. 64. 

2' Calvert Papers, No. I, pp. 182 et seq. 

^ I— Archives, pp. 16, 18, 21. 

2* Boznian, History of Maryland, Vol. ii, p. 64. 



44 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

dence in the case, he was found guilty. The President then 
pronounced sentence in the name of all the freemen. It 
read: 

Thomas Smith you have been indicted of felony 
and pyracie, to your indictint. you have pleaded not 
guilty, and you have beene tried by the ffreemen in 
this general! Assembly, who have found you guilty, 
and pronounce this sentence upon you, that you 
shall be carried from hence to the place from whence 
you came, and thence to the place of exequution, and 
shalbe there hanged by the neck till you be dead; and 
that all your lands goods & chattels shalbe forfeited 
to the Lord Proprietr., saving that your wife shall 
have her dower. And so God have mercy vpon your 
soule.-^ 

Then the prisoner demanded his clergy. Since the assist- 
ance of ministers of religion to attend the condemned was 
denied in certain crimes, the President answered that this 
could not be allowed in this case, and if it nught, yet it was 
now too late after judgment.-' Since no record appears after 
this transaction in regard to Smith, it is not certain what his 
final fate was though it is probable that he was executed in 
accordance with the sentence.'* With regard to Boteler, he 
was not tried, as Calvert hoped, by showing him favor, to 
win him and to make of him, if possible, a good member of 
his colonj' and, if his good disposition toward the Proprietary 
warranted it, to give him the command of the Isle of Kent.-' 
Boteler seems to have come up to the expectations of Calvert 
as he was later appointed to the command of the militia of 
the Island. This confidence was not misplaced. He remained 
faithful to the government, and held various offices of trust 
in the province until his death in 1642.'° 

The Kent islanders, who were a peaceful folk, accepted the 
situation very cheerfully, had their lands, to which they had 
as yet no title, confirmed to them, and in all ways deported 
themselves as good citizens.'^ 



^' / — Archives, pp. 16 and 17. 

" Ibid., p. 17. 

^* Bozman, op. cit., p. 65 (note). 

2' Calrerl Papers, No. i, p. 186. 

'" Browne, G. and C. Calvert, p. 82. 

>'■ Ibid. 



CHAPTER VI 

CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 

From the events related in the preceding chapter in which 
Captain Cornwaleys played so conspicuous a part, one is led 
to believe that his services to the Maryland colony were 
chiefly of a military nature. Were the records of those early 
days still in existence, they would, no doubt, tell us many 
interesting facts relating to Cornwaleys' career as a Com- 
missioner. In this capacity, he must often have been called 
upon to aid and counsel Governor Calvert in his projects 
for the prosperity of the Palatinate. Cornwaleys' whole- 
hearted zeal for the welfare of the colonists that was brought 
into play in subsequent days, must surely have been in 
evidence in the first years of Maryland when the services of 
just such a man were so valuable and indispensable. 

Cornwaleys' expedition to Kent Island was the last public 
service performed by him in his capacity of Commissioner. 
Before the opening of the General Assembly of 1638, a new 
commission was brought by Secretary Lewger. Captain 
Cornwaleys was retained as an adviser of the executive, but 
under the title of Councillor, in conjunction with Hawley and 
Lewger.' 

The General Assembly of 1638 is the first of which we have 
any record. However, this was not the first Assembly held. 
An Assembly was held on February 26, 1635, just eleven 
months after the colonists had taken possession of their new 
territory. Its proceedings would without doubt form a most 
interesting chapter in the early annals of Maryland, but 
unfortunately no account remains to tell the story. The 
very fact of its being held would have been lost to us had it 
not been for a casual reference to one of its acts in the pro- 
ceedings of the Assembly held on March 24, 1637: "whereas 
by an Act of General AssembUe held at St Maries on the six 
and twentieth day of Febry 1634 among other wholesome 

' Bozman, History of Maryland, Vol. ii, p. 46. 

45 



46 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

lawes and ordinances then made and provided for the welfare 
of this Province, it was enacted, that the Offenders in all 
murthers and felonies should suffer such paines, losses and 
forfeitures as they should or ought to have suffered in the like 
crimes in England." - 

The Second General Assembly of Maryland was held at St. 
Mary's and opened on the 25th of January, 1637. The free- 
men of the Province had received due notice to repair to the 
Assembly, either personally or through their representatives. 
According to Streeter,' some attempts at civil di\'ision had 
already been made in the colony. All the settlements were 
regarded as forming the County of St. Mary's; and different 
localities, as they became sufficiently populous, were desig- 
nated Juindrcds. St. Mary's Hundred included the dwellings 
and plantations within the vicinity of the town of that name ; 
St. George's Hundred, embraced the settlers that resided on 
the west bank of the river of the same name; Mattapanient 
was the name of a settlement, not yet numerous, on the 
Patuxent River, and not yet dignified by the designation of a 
Hundred. Kent Island was also represented.^ 

There does not seem to have been any inclination on the 
part of the people to delegate any one individual to act for 
them through a public election, but many of the freemen, 
not finding it convenient to attend, gave a proxy to some 
member to act for them, so that one person in fact represented 
a considerable number of freemen, and the result was the 
same as though all in whose name he acted had united to 
choose him their burgess." "During the sessions of this 
Assembly," says Steiner,* "sixty-four different persons were 
present and twenty-six more freemen are mentioned, who 
did not appear." The sessions were presided over by 
Leonard Calvert, who is designated as "The Lieutenant 
General" or as "The President." The name of Captain 



' I — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 23. 

^ Streeter, Papers relalmg to the Early History of Maryland, pp. 10-11. 

* Ibid. 

'■Ibid., p. 13. 

' Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 76. 



CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 47 

Thomas Cornwaleys usually appears in the records of the 
proceedings immediately after that of the President. 

After the members had assembled on the first day, certain 
orders were established by general consent to be observed 
during the sessions of the Assembly. These orders were as 
follows : 

Imprmis, the Lieutent Grall as President of the 
Assembly, shall appoint and direct all things that 
concerne forme and decency to be observed in the 
same; and shall command the ohservance thereof as 
he shall see cause upon paine of imprisonmt or fine 
as the house shall adjudge. 

Item every one that is to speak to any matter, 
shall stand up, and be uncovered and direct his 
speech to the Lieutenant Generall as President of the 
Assembly. And if two or more stand up to speake 
together, the Lieutent Grall shall appoint which shall 
speak. 

Item no man shall stand up to speak to anj' matter 
untO the partie that spake last before, have sate 
downe, nor shall any one speake above once to one 
bill or matter at one reading nor shall refute the 
speech of any other with any uncivil or contentious 
termes, nor shall name him but by some circumlo- 
quution. And if any one offend to the contrary, the 
Lieutenant Generall shall command him to silence. 

Item the house shall sitt every day at eight of the 
clock in the morning, and at two of the clock in the 
afternoone. 

Item the freemen assembled at any time to any 
number above ten persons, at the houres aforesaid, 
or within one houre after, shalbe a house to all 
purposes. 

Item every one propounding any matter to the 
house shall digest it first into writing and deliver it 
to the Secretary to be read unto the house 

And it was ordered by the house that these Orders 
should be sett up in some publique place of the house, 
to the end all men might take notice of them.' 

During the course of this session of the Assembly Corn- 
waleys appeared as proxy for various members holding the 
right to vote in their stead. On the first day, he held one; 
during the remainder of the sittings he held twelve others. 



/ — Archives, pp. 4-5. 



48 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

besides two, which were offered to him on one occasion, but 
which, by a vote of the house, he was not allowed to accept.^ 

On the second day it was ordered that any member of the 
house who did not put in an appearance at the appointed 
time should be amerced twenty pounds of tobacco for every 
offense. Twelve of the first Acts of the draught of laws 
transmitted by the Proprietary were read and debated. In 
the afternoon session the debate continued.^ The Assembly 
then adjourned till January 29th. 

The third day of the Assembly is worthy of particular 
attention. It was the first occasion on which we find Corn- 
waleys voicing his opinion. The question under discussion 
regarded the "Privilege of Parliament" which exempted the 
legislators from arrest during the Assembly and it was 
mooted whether freemen having made proxies during the 
Assembly could be apprehended before the dissolution of the 
same. Cornwaleys maintained that by delegating their vote 
to another, they deprived themselves of this right to exemp- 
tion. Cornwaleys' object was to curtail the extent of official 
privilege. But the majority of the members held that no 
man who had a right to sit in the Assembly could be arrested 
until, after the close of its sessions, he had sufficient time to 
travel to his place of residence.'" 

Then the question arose whether the body of laws sent 
over by Cecihus Calvert for their acceptance, and which were 
read and discussed the day previous, should be read again, or 
at once put to the vote. The Captain was of the opinion 
"that they should expect a more frequent house," while 
Captain Fleete advocated reading them again; but the 
majority, including Calvert and Lewger, favored imme- 
diate action. However, when the question actually arose 
whether the laws should be accepted or rejected, it was found 
that Calvert and Lewger who controlled fourteen "voices" 
were on the affirmative side, while the remainder, holding 
thirty-seven votes, were on the negative. 

Then the discussion arose as to what laws should govern 



* Streeter, op. cit., p. 133. 
' / — Archires, pp. 6-7. 
^"Ibid., p. 8. 



CORNWALEYS AS LEGISL.\TOR 49 

the Province. Some held that certain temporary enact- 
ments should be made to hold until they heard again from 
England. Then the President emphatically denied any power 
to the house to originate any laws. Cornwaleys suggested 
the laws of England, to which the Governor replied, that his 
conomission gave him power to act in civil cases by the laws 
of England, in criminal cases also "not extending to life or 
member." In the latter, he was Umited to the laws of the 
Province which gave him no power to inflict punishment ' ' on 
any enormous offenders." However, the suggestion was 
offered that since offenses calling for such punishment could 
hardly be committed without mutiny, the offenders could be 
punished by process of martial law. This suggestion seems 
to have settled the difficulty for the time as the discussion 
then ended." 

During the afternoon session of the same day, January 
29th, a proposition was laid before the House to consider laws 
to be sent to the Proprietary. Leonard Calvert advised 
that a committee should be selected to prepare a draft and 
report to the House when they were ready, the members in 
the interim to have time to attend to their private concerns. 
The proposal was favorably received and a committee of five 
was chosen out of a candidature of ten members. It is 
worthy of note as it gives evidence of the high esteem in which 
Captain Cornwaleys was held in the House, that he received 
fifty-four votes — the highest number cast for any of the 
successful candidates. Captain Evelin received forty- 
eight; Captain Wintour, forty-five; Governor Calvert, thirty- 
eight; and Mr. Justinian Snow, thirty-one.'" The House then 
voted to adjourn, to meet again on the 8th of February. As 
the Court was to meet in the interval, the Privilege of 
Parliament was suspended so that there might be no ob- 
struction to the course of justice. 

When the Assembly reconvened, the committee reported 
that the laws prepared by the proprietor should be again 
propounded since there appeared to be a general misunder- 
standing among the freemen regarding their import. The 



" ]Ud., p. 9. 
" Ibid., p. 10. 



50 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

House agreed to the decision, first adopting an order that all 
bills brought up should be read three times on as many 
different days before being voted upon. Then the draft of 
laws was read through the second time as \\'ell as twenty 
bills proposed by the committee, which were read the first 
time. Cornwaleys then asked that it be put to vote whether 
these laws at the third reading should be voted upon singly 
or the whole body together. It was decided by a vote of 
thirty-seven to thirty-two in favor of voting upon them 
separately.'^ This vote seems to have disposed of his Lord- 
ship's code, for no attempt appears to have been made to 
bring it to a third reading." 

In the afternoon, when the members had assembled, the 
Presidejit announced that he thought fit to adjourn the 
Assembly again, for a longer time, till the laws which they 
would propound to the Lord Proprietary were ready, which 
some of the members could take care of, while the others 
would have leisure to attend to their own concerns. 

Cornwaleys immediately made answer that they could not 
spend their time in any business better than in that which 
concerned the good of the colony. Another member de- 
manded to know the reason for the adjournment and declared 
that the members were willing to leave their various occupa- 
tions to attend to public business. Governor Calvert then 
replied that he was accountable to no one for his resolution to 
adjourn the session. 

Then Thomas Cornwaleys made a motion that at least a 
committee should be appointed to take charge of the prepa- 
ration of the laws, till the House met again. To this, the 
body agreed and fixed upon a committee of three. Six 
candidates were proposed. The result of the choice of the 
members showed that Captain Cornwaleys received fifty-six 
votes; Governor Calvert, forty-six; and Captain Evelin, 
forty-four. After this action, the President adjourned the 
House till February 26th, after the privilege of parliament 
was again revoked. 



"Ibid., p. 11. 

" Streeter, op. cit., p. 137. 



CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 51 

Governor Calvert's decision to adjourn the Assembly on 
this occasion without assigning any reason seemed rather 
abrupt and ill-timed. But the Governor had excellent 
reasons that prompted him to take such action. The state 
of things in Kent Island at the time demanded his presence 
there to settle matters. He deemed it wise to keep his 
intention secret to assure the better success of his expedition, 
the account of which has been related in the preceding 
chapter. 

In the absence of Leonard Calvert, the Assembly had been 
convened on schedule by Secretary Lewger, acting for the 
Governor. But it merely met to adjourn to meet again on 
March 5th. Owing to the Governor's being still absent, 
adjournment was ordered till the 12th of March. On that 
day, the President again occupied the chair. Cornwaleys 
was also at his post of duty as the faithful aid and counsellor 
of the Governor. 

The main business of tliis session of the Assembly was 
rapidly pushed forward. Various measures were brought 
before the legislative body and passed. Among them might 
be mentioned in particular an act "for capitall felonies," 
from one part of which Cornwaleys dissented; the other, an 
act "for support of the Lord Proprietor" was passed but 
"denied by the Captain and three others." "" 

On March 24th, the last day of the civil year according to 
reckoning in use at the time, the members assembled. "The 
laws as they were faire ingrossed were read in the house." 
This procedure consumed the time of the morning and after- 
noon sessions. After the laws had been read they were 
signed by the Governor and the rest of the House. The 
Assembly came to a close with this meeting.'" 

The year 1638 proved, in many particulars, one of great 
trial for the Maryland colonists. Not the least of these was 
the prevalence of disease which raged in the Province around 
that time.'' During the course of the epidemic, the mis- 



1* / — Archives, p. 22. 

"Ibid., p. 23. 

" Streeter, op. cit., p. 146. 



52 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

sionaries, of whom there were four, all of the Society of 
Jesus, worked indefatigably to bring to the stricken the 
consolations of religion. Among those who died during 
the scourge, were Jerome Hawley, the friend and fellow- 
Councillor of Cornwaleys, of whom we shall speak later; 
Father Knowles and Brother Gervase of the Society of 
Jesus.^* 

During this eventful year, Cornwaleys' abihty and faith- 
fulness to duty were eminently proven in the varied offices 
he was called upon to perform for the good of the Province. 
The confidence of the Proprietor in appointing him adviser 
to his brother was not misplaced. The rehance of the people 
on his integrity and business tact was manifested in his 
selection on numerous occasions for arbitrations and the 
settlement of estates. The estates administered by the 
Captain were those of John Saunders,'^ Jerome Hawley -" 
and Thomas Cullamore.-' The Governor's appreciation of 
Cornwaleys' military skill was evidenced by requiring his 
services in the expedition to Kent Island. The confidence 
of Calvert was shown in the Captain's administrative abihty 
when he was appointed on May 27, 1638, Deputy Governor 
of the Province during Calvert's absence in Virginia.-' "As 
a legislator," says Streeter, "he had proved his firmness, and 
his single purpose to act only for the public good, in the 
course of the session (of the Assembly) which ended in 
March ; and his impartiality and superiority to mere religious 
prejudices were admirably displayed in his investigations into 
the case of the Protestant servants of William Lewis, in 
July of the same year." -^ 

The result of the trial here referred to was this. Two 
Protestant servants of William Lewis were accused by him 
before Cornwaleys of having drawn up a paper to band the 



1" Cf. Hughes, The History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Vol. I, 
p. 109, Documents ; Vol. i, p. 336, Text; Foley, Records of the English Province of 
the Society of Jesu^, Vol. m, pp. 367-8; Streeter, op. cit., p. 146. 

i« IV — Archives of Maryland, Court, p. 14. 

2" The administration of Hawley's estate will be dealt with in the chapter on 
Hawley and Cornwaleys. 

21 IV~Archii'es, pp. 39, 74 et seq., and 102. 

22 /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 74. 
" Streeter, op. cit., p. 147. 



CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 53 

Protestants together for the purpose of petitioning Governor 
Harvey and the Council of Virginia, to send to St. Mary's, 
and demand the surrender of Lewis to be proceeded against 
as a traitor to England, on the charge of having spoken 
disrespectfully of the clergy of the Established Church, and 
that he had forbidden his servants to read the authorized 
pubUcations of divines of the same Church. The Captain 
took up the affair at once and the subsequent proceedings of 
the case proved that the Protestants could get redress in 
Maryland without having recourse to any tribimal beyond 
her confines. 

When Cornwaleys had heard this part of the story, he 
sent for Secretary Lewger, and called in Robert Sedgrave 
and Francis Gray, the parties principally compromised in 
Lewis' charge. Sedgrave admitted that he had a paper 
which he had prepared and given to Gray who, even then, 
had it with him. This was turned over to Captain Corn- 
waleys. The document was an appeal to persons not named, 
accusing Lewis of reproaches against the ministers of their 
rehgion, of forbidding his servants to read any book relative 
to their religion and of trying to win over ignorant persons 
by craft to the Catholic religion. They therefore besought 
those who had the power to stop these abuses on the part of 
Lewis. It was found that the object of the paper was to 
induce some of the freemen to petition the Governor and 
Council for redress of their grievances. 

On Tuesday, July 3, 1638, the parties concerned with their 
witnesses, were summoned before Governor Calvert, Captain 
Cornwaleys and Secretary Lewger, sitting as a Court. 
Sedgrave admitted that he had drawn up the paper and 
given it to Gray. Thy were on their way to the chapel on 
the preceding Sunday when Cornwaleys called them and 
interrogated them on the matter. Gray admitted his intent 
of giving it to certain freemen for presentation to the 
Governor. 

Examination of the witnesses proved that the two servants 
had been reading a book in which the Pope was termed anti- 
Christ, and the Jesuits, anti-Christian ministers. Lewis had 
come upon them whilst thus engaged. Irritated at these 



54 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

harsh words, Lewis retorted that the accusations were false, 
that the Protestant clergymen were ministers of the devil, 
and that he would not have that book read in his house. 
Lewis offered to prove that the purpose of the paper was to 
combine the Protestants and to petition Harvey for aid, but, 
not being able to prove his contention since his witness was 
absent on a trading expedition, the Governor deferred the 
trial of Sedgrave and his associates on that charge till the 
witness could be produced in Court," and thereupon called 
upon the Secretary to give his opinion in the case. 

Lewger pronounced the accused guilty of an offensive 
and indiscreet speech in calhng the author of the book in 
question a minister of satan; of very offensive speech in 
calling Protestant clergymen the ministers of the devil; and 
to have gone to excess in forbidding what was allowed to be 
read by the State of England, but he acquitted him of the 
accusation to have or use Protestant books in his house. 
Since these offensive speeches and his other unseasonable 
disputations on religious topics tended to the disturbance of 
the public peace and were in violation of a public procla- 
mation put forth to prohibit such disputes, he sentenced 
Lewis to pay a fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco to the 
Proprietary, and to remain in the sheriff's custody until he 
found secm'ity for liis good behaviour in these matters for the 
future. The Captain concurred substantiaUy with this 
opinion and the Governor entirely. Thereupon the security 
was given.-* 

The incident of the trial of William Lewis and its outcome 
is indeed very insignificant in itself, nevertheless it shows that 
liberty of conscience in the colony of Maryland was not a 
dead letter in the legislation of the Province. When the law 
was enacted forbidding religious disputes cannot be definitely 
stated. Browne is of the opinion that it was enacted in the 
First Assembly, the records of which, as stated before, have 
been lost.^* 



" WTiether the trial of Sedgrave and his associates ever took place cannot be 
stated as no record of it is to be found in the [Proceedings of the Provincial Court. 

'^ IV — Archives, pp. 35-9; Streeter, op. cit., p. 232; Russell, Maryland the 
Land of Sanctuary, pp. 126-7. 

'^ Cf . V — Archives of Maryland, Council, Preface, p. 1. 



CHAPTER VII 

CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 

Shortly after the dissolution of the Second Assembly, 
three letters were sent to Cecihus Calvert. The first of 
these is from Father Thomas Copley, and is dated April 3, 
1638; the second is from Captain Thomas Cornwaleys, and 
is dated April 6; and the third from Governor Leonard 
Calvert, dated April 25.^ These letters probably reached the 
Lord Proprietary at the same time that the revised code of 
laws sent over after the sessions of the Assembly. The 
Archives of Maryland give only the titles of the laws passed 
at the Second Assembly. However, from these letters, much 
information is to be had of the content of the code. 

In the letters of the missionary, the Captain and the 
Governor, different opinions are expressed on the code, in 
accordance with the views the different parties concerned, 
took of the same. Calvert writes: "The body of lawes you 
sent over by Mr. Lewger I endeavored to have had passed 
by the assembl}^ at Maryland but could not effect it, there 
was so many things unsuteable to the peoples good and no 
way conduceing to your proffitt that being they could not 
be exempted from others which they willingly would have 
passed they were desireous to suspend them all, the particlar 
exceptions which were made against them Mr. Lewger hath 
given you an account of in his dispatches to you: others 
have been passed in the same assembly and now sent unto 
you which I am perswaded will appear unto you to provide 
both for your honor and profRtt as much as those you sent us 
did." 2 

Father Copley's sentiments are couched in the following 
language: "Touching the lawes which your lordshipe sent, I 
am told that they would not be excepted and, even the 
Governor, and Mr. Lugar said once to me, that they were 
not fitt for this Colonye. for myne owne parte, seeing noe 

' The letters referred to are to be found in The Calvert Papers, No. i, follow- 
ing each other in order on pp. 1.57, 169 and 182 respectively. 
2 Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 189-190. 

55 



56 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

service that I could doe your lordshipe therein and many 
inconvenices that I might runne into by intermedUnge, I 
never soe much as rede them nether doe I yet know what they 
contained; for the temporall providence I left my selfe to 
your lordshipe and for matter of conscience, I supposed that 
your lordshipe had taken good advise what occasion then 
could I have to intermeddle about them? The lawes which 
now are sent to your lordshipe I never knew nor saw till 
even now, that they weare ready to be sent to your lordshipe. 
And there being hast to send them, I only goot a hasty vew of 
them. Yet diverse things even in that hasty reeding occured 
to me, which I conceaved requisite to acquanite you with 
all, leaving them to your lordships more serious con- 
sideration." ^ 

Cornwaley's letter also voices criticism of both codes. He 
writes: "Nor were it difficult out of the Lawes sent over by 
your Lordship, or these that are from hence proposed toe you, 
toe finde Just grounds for toe feare the Introdusement of 
Lawes prejuditiall toe oure honors and freedome witnes 
that on[e] Act whereby wee are exposde to A remediles 
Suffering of all Disgraces and Insolensyes that eyther the 
Pastion or Mallis [passion or mahce] of Suckseedeing 
Governors shall please toe put upon us, with out beeing 
permitted soe much as A LawfuU defence for the secureing 
of Life or reputation though never soe unjustly Attempted 
toe be taken from us, with out forfeyteing the same and all 
wee have to boote. This and many other Absurdetyes I 
doubt not but your Lordship will finde and Correct upon the 
peruseall of oure learned Lawes." ^ 

The body of laws sent over to Lord Baltimore after the 
Second Assembly were subjected to criticism by a clergyman 
and a layman. In the case of the layman. Captain Corn- 
waleys, the objection to the code received all the more 
weight since it emanated from such an important personage as 
one of the Governor's Councillors. The laws were criticised 



'Ibid., pp. 158-9. It is to be noted that the missionaries were excused 
from attending sessions of the Assembly, cf. / — Archives oj Maryland, Assembly, 
p. 5. 

* Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 173. 



CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 57 

under a double aspect as touching lay affairs as well as 
spiritual.'^ 

As has been stated above, much of the content of this code 
submitted by the Second Assembly must be gleaned from 
these letters. The titles of the various acts as recorded in 
the minutes of this Assembly help us to identify the separate 
topics spoken of in the letters, and give us a clearer under- 
standing of the laws in question. 

Father Hughes has summed up the code in the briefest 
possible way. He tells us that "of the two score laws and 
more, eight are about manors. They regulate the assigning 
of manors, the peopling and supporting of them; and, strange 
to say, they contain a prohibition to alienate or part with a 
manor. There is a law that a glebe shall be settled, or, as 
we learn from Father Copley, that every manor shall pro- 
vide one hundred acres for the support of a pastor. There 
are laws about building a town, erecting a fort, planting corn, 
and about securing the titles to lands. There are military 
duties and services laid to the charge of manors and free- 
holds: as well as an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign ...'*' 
There are laws about the descent of land, the succession to the 
goods of intestates, and the probate of wills. Besides, there 
are criminal laws regarding capital offenses; the privilege of 
clergy for some capital crimes; the arbitrary punishment of 
enormous offenses; and a bill for the support of the Lord 
Proprietary." '^ 

From the letters referred to we will be able to get a better 
understanding of the laws in themselves as well as to form 
an estimate of the light in which they were regarded by the 
writers of the same. 

Father Copley intimates to the Lord Proprietor that 
"some here reflecting on what they have done say plainly 
that if they canne not live here, they canne Hve else where, 
and therfor that they care not much." He then states that 
others have been complaining that the Governor and Mr. 



'■ Hughes, The History of the Society of Jestm in North America, Vol. i, 
Text, p. 390. 

« Ibid., pp. 390-1. 



58 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Luger "and there instruments" had secured so many proxies 
that they did just as they pleased without restraint. Again 
others questioned the vahdity of the laws saying that they 
could prove that the laws were never read thrice in the same 
tenor. The missionary then asks if the mere apprehensi'^>n of 
future consequences affrights them, what will the conse- 
quences themselves do. He is of the opinion that even in 
the most flourishing countries Lords of manors would find 
laws of that stamp as he refers to in his letter burdensome. ' 

Captain Cornwaleys tells the Proprietor that he desires 
to see him ' ' at peace with the first Adventurers, whoe are I 
perceave noe whit satisfyed with thejTe Last Conditions for 
the Trade. Theyre harts haveing not seconded theyre hands 
in the agreement, but some for love some for feare some by 
Importunety and the rest for Company consented toe what 
they now repine toe stand toe, nor can I blame them for 
tis impossible they can be savers by it. Which made mee 
refuse to beare them Company, and therefore am I now the 
only Supposed Enemy toe your Lordships Proffitt, which I 
disclayme from unless there bee an Antipothy betwixt that 
and my Subcistance on this Place." * 

Father ^VMte, in a letter dated February 20, 1638, speaks 
of a class of individuals whom he terms "relinquishers," 
"men who understand little of truck or trade" who were 
willing to sign away anything by a concordat.' This con- 
cordat, in the opinion of Father Hughes, "seems to have 
been a subsidiary manoeuvre for handing over all rights of 
trade to his lordship." '" 

The Captain writes of the difficult conditions of trade and 
of the unprofitableness of raising tobacco in the following 
words: "I was this yeere determined toe have waighted 
upon your Lordship in England, and on[e] way or other toe 
have concluded this fateall difference about the Trade, for 
my Lord I may properly use the words of the Ghospell, I 

' Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 160-1. 

^Ibid., pp. 173-4. 

"Ibid., p. 209. 

'" Hughes, op. cit., p. 393. 



CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 59 

cannot Digg and to Begg I am Ashamed, if therefor your 
Lordship nor your Country will afford me noe other way toe 
support the great Expenses that I have beene and dayly am 
at for my Subcistans heere, but what I must fetch out of the 
Grounde by Planting this Stincking weede of America, I 
must desert the Place and busynes, which I confes I shall bee 
loth toe doe, soe Cordiall A lover am I of them both, yet if I 
am forst toe it by discourteous Injuries I shall not weepe at 
parting nor despajTe toe find heaven as neere toe other parts 
as Maryland. But I will first doe my Endeavor toe Com- 
pose things soe as non shall say heereafter that I lost A right 
I bought soe deere through negligens or Ignorans. Other 
mens Imaginations are noe infalUble presidents toe mee, nor 
will the multitude of names nor Seales, move mee toe bee a 
foole for Company, for what in them was only Inadvertens, 
non would tearm less then foUery in mee, whoe might or 
ought toe know by experiens, that it is impossible toe Comply 
with the Conditions mentioned in the Lease and bee a Saver 
by them." " 

Having considered the objections of the missionary and 
the Captain with regard to trade, we now turn to examine 
the complaints of the former to certain laws passed by the 
late Assembly. 

"First" says Father Copley, "there is not any care at all 
taken, to promote the conversion of the Indians, to provide 
or to shew any favor to Ecclesiastical persons, or to preserve 
for the church the Immunitye and priveledges, which she 
enjoyeth every where else." ^^ Mr. Lewger is accused of 
defending the opinion that the Church has no privileges by 
divine right. The Secretary, together with others that adhere 
to him, seem to be resolved to bind the clergy to all laws and 
to make the same exactions of them as they do of other men. 
This official has even demanded of Father Copley, before the 
confirmation of the law, fifteen hundred weight of tobacco 
towards the building of a fort, "Whereas" writes the priest, 
"I dare boldly say that the whole Colony together never 
bestowed on me the worth of five hundred weight one would 

" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 176. 
" Ibid., p. 162. 



60 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

thinke that even out of Gratitude, they might free us from 
such kinde of taxation especially seing, we put noe taxe 
upon them, but healpe them gratis, and healpe them also in 
such a manner, that I am sure they canne not complaine." ^^ 
"Secondly by the new lawe we should relinquish what we 
have, and then cast lotts in what place we shall choose, and if 
our lott proove ill, what we have already may be chosen from 
us and soe we may beginne the world anew, and then ether 
we must loose all our buildinge, all our cleering, all our 
enclosures, and all our tennants, or else be forced to sitt 
freeholders, and to pay for every hundred acres one barrell of 
corne whereas we are not yet in a little care to gitt bread." '^ 
The result of this procedure would be that though the mis- 
sionaries should choose "Metapanian" first, they would lose 
Mr. Gerard's manor despite the fact that they bought it at 
great expense. Furthermore, should this be permitted, then 
the Assembly can so alter their rights that no man would be 
sure what really was his. Besides he who could secure the 
most proxies could dispose of the property of others as he 
deemed fit.^^ 

The next point raised by Father Copley regards military 
service under the provisions of which they must be trained 
as soldiers and provide munitions. They must have in 
every manor fifteen men available for service whom, during 
the time of service, they must maintain. "Other things we 
should be subjecte to by these lawes, which would be very 
unfitt for us." 

Under the law it is expected that every "head" plant two 
acres of corn. The fathers have not sufficient men to employ 
in planting. If they wish to comply with this law they must 
either turn planters themselves or else "trench" upon the 
statute. Under the new regime, they would not only lose 
their trade in beaver and corn but in the case of the latter 
they must ask leave to buy the corn necessary for the making 
of bread. And should tho.se who have a monopoly in this 



" Ibid., p. 163. 
" Ibid. 
'^Ibid., p. 164. 



CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 61 

commodity or be otherwise indisposed they would be put to 
the embarassment of being "at the courtesy of other men." '* 

With regard to the missionaries receiving lands from con- 
verted Indians, Father Copley states that, though he is 
resolved not to take up land except under his Lordship's 
title, yet the time might come when, such an offer being made 
toward building a house or church for the fathers, no small 
inconvenience might arise. With regard to this possible 
event, he inquires "whether any one that should goe aboute 
to restraine ecclesiasticall libertys in this point encurre not 
the exconmiunications of Bulla Coenae." 

Under the new statutes, in every manor one hundred 
acres must be laid out for glebe land. Should the intention 
of this law be to bind them who enjoy it to be pastors, then 
the fathers must either become pastors themselves or in their 
own manor maintain pastors, both of which arrangements 
would be very inconvenient. 

The next portion of Father Copley's letter, we prefer to 
give entirely in his own words. It runs as follows: "That it 
may be prevented that noe woman here vow chastety in the 
world, unless she marry within seven yeers after land fall to 
hir, she must ether dispose away of hir land, or else she shall 
forfeite it to the nexte of kinne and if she have but one 
Mannor, whereas she canne not alienaite it, it is gonne 
unlesse she git a husband. To what purpose this ole law is 
maid your lordshipe perhaps will see better than I for my 
parte I see greate difficultyes in it, but to what purpose I 
well see not." '" 

In the order set down for the payment of debts, the Pro- 
prietary is cautioned to ponder it well. Though Father 
Copley confesses he has not examined it very carefully he 
doubts not that "it runneth not right with that which is 
ordinarily prescribed by Casuits as just." 

"In the thirty-fourth law amonge the Enormous Crime 
One is Exercisinge jurisdiction and authoritye, without 
lawfuU power and commission dirived from the lord pro- 
's Ibid. 
" Ibid., 165. 



62 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

prietarie." Hereby, according to the missionary, even by 
Catholics a law is provided to hang any Catholic bishop that 
should come to Maryland as well as any priest, if the exercise 
of his functions be interpreted as jurisdiction or authority.'* 

Father Copley then cautions Lord Baltimore that before 
he does anything in the matter of these laws, he ponder well 
the Bulla Coenae; secondly, that in things concerning the 
Church, he should take good advice from church authorities 
and finally, that he be careful not to "trench upon the church 
and where any thinge may seem to trench, to use fitt pre- 
vention against the bad consequence."'^ 

Thomas Cornwaleys also writes a word of warning. He 
says: "I beseeche your Lordship for his Sake whose honor 
you and wee doe heere pretend, and whoe at Last must 
Judg with what Sincerety wee have discharged it. That you 
from whose Consent they must receave the bindeing fors of 
Lawes, will not permit the least Clawes toe pas that shall not 
first bee thoroughly Scand and resolved by wise Laerned and 
Religious Divines toe bee noe waise prejuditiall toe the 
Immunettyes and Priveledges of that Church which is the 
only true Guide toe all Eternall Happines, of which wee shall 
shew oureselves the most ungratefuU members that ever 
shee nourished, if in requiteall of those many favors and 
Blessings that shee and her devoute Servants have obtayned 
for us, wee attempt toe deprive her of them, with out paying 
such A Price as hee that Buyes it will repent his Bargayne. 
What are her Greevances, and how toe bee remedyed, you 
will I doubt not understand at Large from those whoe are 
more knowing in her rights and Consequently more sensyble 
of her Injuryes then such an Ignorant Creature as I am. 
Wherefore now all that belongs toe mee, is only toe importune 
your Lordship in whose powre t'is yet toe mend what we have 
done Amis, toe bee most Careful! in preserveing his Honor 
whoe must Preserve both you and Maryland. Perhaps this 
fault hath beene permitted in us as a favoure toe your Lord- 

'* Ihid. Father Copley's fears as to Lord Baltimore's usurping ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction are unfounded as no attempt was made by either himself or the 
Assembly to control the jurisdiction of the clergy. 

"/fcirf., p. 166. 



CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 63 

ship whereby you may declare the Sincerely of your first 
pyouse pretence for the Planting of this Province, which will 
bee toe much doubted of if you should take Advantage of 
oure Ignorant and uncontionable proceedings toe Assume 
more than wee can Justly give you. And for A Little 
Imaginary Honor, throw your self us and your Country out 
of that protection which hath hithertoe preserved and Pros- 
pered that and usbeyound Humaine Expectation; which noe 
doubt will bee continued if wee Continue as we ought, toe 
bee, I never yet heard of any that Lost by beeing bountyfull 
toe God or his Church, then let not your Lordship heare toe 
bee the first. Give up toe God what doth belong toe him, and 
doubt not but Cesar shall receave his due. If your Lordship 
thinks mee toe teadious in A discourse not proper toe the 
Part that I doe Act, my Interest in the whole Action must 
excuse mee, Sylence would perhaps make mee Supposed 
Accessary toe these dangerous Positions, which is soe far 
from my Intention, that as I now declare toe youre Lord- 
ship and shall not feare toe doe the like toe all the world if it 
bee necessary, I will rather Sacrifice myself and all I have in 
the defence of Gods Honor and his churches right, then 
willingly Consent toe anything that may not stand with the 
Good Contiens of A Real Cathofick. Which resolution if 
your Lordship doe not allsoe make good by A Religious Care 
of what you send over Authorised by your Consent, I shall 
with as much Convenient speede as I can with draw myself, 
and what is Left of that which I brought with mee, out of 
the Danger of beeing involved in the ruein which I shall 
infallibly expect. Your Lordship knowes my securety of 
Contiens was the first Condition that I expected from this 
Government, which then you thought soe Inocent as you 
Conceaved the Proposition altogether impertinent, But now 
I hope you will perceave the Contrary." "" 

From this appeal of Captain Cornwaleys to the Proprietor, 
we learn that he was very solicitous about the laws passed 
by the last Assembly. In the last chapter several instances 



'Ibid., pp. 171-.3. 



64 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

were recorded where he objected to certain enactments. 
Since the minutes of that Assembly have not come down to 
us we are unable to know just what opposition he raised to 
the legislation of the Assembly. On March 16, there were 
many of the laws passed which met with no opposition and 
the Captain was present at the session.-' Again on the last 
day of the Second Assembly, it is recorded that the Governor 
signed the laws as well as the rest of the House, Corn- 
waleys being present on that occasion as well. But the 
dissatisfaction, as has been seen, was by no means confined to 
Cornwaleys. Father Copley has told us, as before stated, 
that many complained about the proxies of Calvert and 
Lewger and of the manner in which the laws varied at each 
reading. We are led to believe that the Captain, realizing 
this state of afTairs, was content to leave the matter as it then 
stood, resolving to write a letter to the Proprietary voicing 
his condemnation of the laws to which he objected and trusting 
to Lord Baltimore's good judgment and honesty in the case 
for redress. That the Captain was not always of one mind 
with Governor Calvert is also evident from the words of a 
letter written by Leonard Calvert to his brother. He says 
that "it hath been his fortune and myne to have had some 
differences formerly yet in many things I have had his faith- 
full assistance for your service and in nothing more then 
in the expedicion to Kent this last winter." -^ These dif- 
ferences of which Calvert speaks may have been with regard 
to the laws. 

After Father Copley had addressed his warning to the Lord 
Proprietor, he asked for certain privileges to be granted to 
him by a private order as long as the government remained 
Catholic. They are as follows: "The first that the church 
and our houses may be Sanctuarie. The second that our 
selves and our domestique servants, and halfe at least of our 
planting servants, may be free from publique taxes and 
services, And the rest of our servants and our tennants, 

^' / — Archives, p. 20. 

'' Letter of Leonard Calvert to the Proprietary, dated April 25, 1638, Calvert 
Papers, No. i, p. 190. 



CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 65 

though exteriorly the doe as others in the Colony, Yet that in 
the manner of exacting or doing it, privatly the custome of 
other catholiques countrye may be observed as much as may 
be that catholiques out of bad practice cumme not to forgit 
those due respects which they owe to god and his church." 
The third is that though in publique we suffer our cause to be 
heard and tryed by the pubhque magestrats, yet that in 
private they know, that they doe it but as arbitrators and 
defendors of the church because Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction 
is not yet here setled. The fourth. That in our owne 
persons and with such as are needfull to assiste us, we may 
freely goe, abide and live amonge the Savages, with out any 
licence to be had here from the Governor, or any other, 
lastly, that though we relinquish the use of many ecclesiasti- 
call priviledge when we j udge it convenient for satisfaction of 
the state at home, yet that it be left to our discretion to 
determine when this is requisite; and that we be suffered to 
enjoy such other priviledges as we may with out note.-^ And 
touching our temporaltyes. first I beseech your lordshipe that 
we may take up and keepe soe much lande, as in my former 
letters I acquainted your lordshipe to be requisite for our 
present occasions, according to the first conditions which we 
maid with your lordshipe ... In the trade I shall requeste 
that your lordshipe performe soe much, as that we may 
employ one bote whensoever we shall not otherwyse use it 
... I desire lykwyse from your lordshipe a free Grante to 
buy corn of the Indians without asking leave here, for endeed 
It will be a greate pressure to eate our bread at there curtesye, 
who as yet I have found but very little curtous." -' At the 
beginning of Father Copley's letter, Lord Baltimore wrote 
"heerein are demands of very extravagant priviledges." 

Whatever opinion one may form as to the justice of the 
claim of the missionaries, or of the rights of Lord Baltimore, 
two considerations must not be lost sight of. In the first 



^ Lord Baltimore here notes in his own handwriting on the margin of the 
letter; "All their tenants as well as servants he intimates heere aought to be 
exempted from the temporall government." Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 166. 

" Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 166-7. 

^^ Ibid., pp. 166-8. 



66 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

place, the generous, self-sacrificing conduct of the Jesuit 
missionaries, precludes the conclusion that the Fathers were 
actuated by mere mercenary motives. Their one object was 
to enable them more effectively to further their Apostolic 
work in extending the kingdom of Christ. Davis, an 
Episcopahan, writing of them, says: "Their pathway was 
through the desert ; and their first chapel, the wigwam of an 
Indian. Two of them were here, at the dawn of our history : 
they came to St. Mary's with the original emigrants; they 
assisted, by pious rites, in laying the corner-stone of a State ; 
they kindled the torch of civihzation in the wilderness; they 
gave consolation to the grief-stricken pilgrim; they taught 
the religion of Christ to the simple sons of the forest. The 
history of Maryland presents no better, no purer, no more 
sublime lesson than the story of the toils, sacrifices, and 
successes of her early missionaries." ^^ 

"The impartial observer of events will, in the second 
place," says Russell, "remember that Lord Baltimore was a 
Catholic whose sincerity cannot be questioned. Had he, 
like his grandson, renounced his faith, most, if not all, the 
difficulties and dangers which menaced his colony would have 
disappeared, and his success in every worldly waj' would have 
been assured. He held fast to his Church at the cost of 
enormous sacrifices, and such sacrifices are proof sufficient 
of the genuineness of his beUef." -' 

We have stated in the beginning of this chapter that these 
letters touched spiritual matters and lay or temporal af- 
fairs. What the fate of the code was will be seen in a subse- 
quent chapter. We can therefore touch briefly upon the 
relations of Lord Baltimore and the missionaries. This 
matter forms a part of the biography of Thomas Corn- 
waleys in so far as he was on the side of the fathers as is 
abundantly proven by his letter. It must be remembered 
that no matter what differences may have arisen between the 
Proprietary and the Jesuits, this in no wise weakened his 

25 Davis, The Day-Star of American Freedom, pp. 159-60. 
" Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 151 . 



CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 67 

faith in the Church for which he was ever prepared to make 
heroic sacrifices.-'* 

Under date of April 4, 1634, shortly after the arrival of 
the colonists in Maryland, a decree of Propaganda states, to 
use the words of Father Hughes, "that, at the instance of the 
'Enghsh clergy,' whomsoever that term may designate, the 
Sacred Congregation judged the proposal of sending a 
mission to Maryland, in the premises, as a measure highly 
opportune ; and it ordered ' the agent of the same clergy ' to 
name a prefect and missionaries, or to have them named by 
the French Nuncio, who in all cases was to report on the 
fitness of the men designated." -' For some years nothing 
seems to have been done in the matter. However, in 1641, 
in accordance with the wishes of Lord Baltimore, Mgr. 
Rosetti, Nuncio in Belgium, was instructed by Propaganda 
to send "information about the said island (Maryland), the 
Catholics there, secular priests in England fitted for the 
mission, and especially one more prominent and learned, who 
might be appointed prefect." '"' 

Monsignor Rosetti, afterwards Archbishop of Tarsus, 
after a visit to England in 1641, sent his report to the Sacred 
Congregation, together with the names of fourteen priests 
who were deemed fit to be sent to the mission field of Mary- 
land. The first name on the Ust is that of Rev. Dr. Britton, 
who might be made Prefect.^^ After faculties had been 
dispatched for the new irdssionaries to Father Philips, the 
Queen's confessor, a memorial on behalf of the Jesuits was 
addressed to the Holy Office complaining against the attitude 
of Lord Baltimore and protesting against the sending of the 
Secular clergy to Maryland.^- 

In February, 1642, having received the Memorial, the 
Congregation of the Holy Office ordered the faculties of the 
Secular clergy suspended and the mission put off ' ' until such 
time as this Sacred Congregation shall have examined some 



^»Ibid., p. 156. 

25 Hughes, op. cil., p. 333. 

'» Ihid., Hughes quoting Propaganda Archives, p. 495. 

2' Ibid., pp. 493-8. 

^2 Ibid., pp. 506-15; also Russell, op. cit., pp. 152-3. 



68 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

points, and determined that whicli is best to do for the greater 
service of God ever blessed, and for the propagation of the 
holy faith." '^ In the meantime the clergy appointed to go 
to the colony were impatiently awaiting their faculties. Not 
knowing entirely the causes of the delay, they were minded 
to proceed at first in virtue of their ordinary faculties for 
the royal dominions of Great Britain. However, Rosetti 
dissuaded them from proceeding in this manner.^^ Mean- 
while Lord Baltimore, finding his purpose of sending Secular 
missionaries thwarted, decided that the Jesuits also should 
not go, while at the same time, Leonard Calvert endeavored 
to prevent the missionaries actually in the colony from 
leaving.^^ A deadlock resulted. To overcome the difficulty 
the General of the Jesuits wrote to Father Edward Knott, the 
Provincial of the Society of Jesus in England on November 
22, 1642: "I myself will see that faculties are asked for them 
from the (Cardinal) Protector, to buy off vexation. If they 
are obtained I will let your Reverence know." ^^ 

Whether this arrangement of the General was agreeable or 
whether the suspended faculties were granted to the Secular 
Fathers, we cannot say. However, two Secular priests. 
Fathers Gilmett and Territt, set sail sometime about 
November, 1642, on different vessels.'' The Proprietary, 
in a letter dated November 21, 1642, commends the Fathers 
to the Governor's care; in another letter written from Bristol, 
on November 18, 1643,'* further instructions are given to look 
after the welfare of these priests." 

In writing of Father Copley's relations with Lord Balti- 
more, Russell considers the characters of this missionary and 
Secretary Lewger. He says: " Copley and Lewger were men 
of strong individuality, powerful will and extraordinary 
tenacity of purpose, and their clash of temperaments 
probably resulted from the manifest similarity of their 

'' Hughes, op. cil., citing Vatican Archives, p. 520. 

" Ibid., p. 524. 

'^ Russell, op. cil., p. 154. 

'^ Hughes, op. cil., p. 532. 

" CalveH Papers, No. i, p. 212. 

»» Ibid. 

™ /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 143. 



CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 69 

natures." *° Again he says: "A meeting of these two indomit- 
able natures could hardly make for 'peace and good will,' 
yet we cannot doubt of their sincerity and self-sacrificing 
zeal." *' 

Regarding the champions of either side, whether of the 
Proprietary or the Jesuits, much can be said. The mis- 
sionaries asked at most, special privileges, but we cannot say 
that they begrudged freedom of conscience to other rehgion- 
ists. Moreover the privileges they asked for, were such as 
the clergy enjoyed in CathoUc England under Magna Charta 
until the time of the Protestant separation. "The world 
at large," says the author of Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, 
"had hardly at that time coriceived an idea of such a state 
of affairs as obtains now in the United States. We, today, 
are accustomed to the present relations of Church and State ; 
we can see its practicabihty, and we can appreciate its 
advantages. It was then an untried novelty in civil govern- 
ment. To most people there appeared no middle way 
between favoring one church or another. The devoted, 
self-sacrificing priests, zealous for the salvation of souls, 
. . . shut out from the rest of the world, were quite naturally 
in no position to take such a view of the situation as pre- 
sented itself to Lord Baltimore. It was clear to him as to 
many other far-seeing statesmen that the time was come 
when the religious and political conditions of the world 
demanded rehgious freedom. In this respect, he and the 
other colonists who upheld his policy were far in advance of 
their times." ^- 



" Russell, op. cil., p. 158. 
" Ilml., p. 159. 
« Ibid., pp. 172-3. 



CIL\PTER VIII 
Jerome Hawley and Thomas Cornwalevs 

Among the first colonists who arrived in Maryland, was 
the fellow Commissioner of Thomas Cornwaleys, Jerome 
Hawley, a friend of the Captain. Hawley was a man of 
education and refinement. In appointing him as one of the 
Commissioners, Lord Baltimore proved that he placed 
confidence in his talents and good judgment. " He embarked 
with the Governor," says Streeter, "participated in the 
dangers and trials of the voyage, aided in the first recon- 
noisance of the country on the Potomac, and was one of 
those who, with appropriate civil and religious ceremonies, 
united in taking possession of the ground selected as the site 
of the first settlement, and christening it by the name of St. 
Mary's." ' 

Hawley became treasurer of Virginia early in 1637.^ 
While performing the duties incumbent on him in virtue of 
this office, he continued to act as Commissioner and Counsel- 
lor of Maryland. In the administration of his duties in 
Virginia, Hawley drew upon himself the criticism of Secretary 
Kemp, who wrote a letter of complaint against him to the 
Proprietary of Maryland. Governor Calvert also wrote to 
his brother relative to the same matter. Cornwaleys was 
cognizant of the disfavor into which Hawley had fallen and 
wrote a defense of his friend to Cecilius Calvert. 

Kemp wrote on April 25, 1638, to acquaint Lord Baltimore 
of how matters stood upon the arrival of Hawley in Virginia 
as Treasurer. He states that such was the general dislike of 
the inhabitants of Virginia against Hawley that they would 
have removed him from office by an act of Assembly had not 
the Governor and Counsel curbed their proceedings. When 
Hawley assumed his office, he gave them no further account 
of the extent of his powers than those expressed in his com- 
mission. He alleges that he enjoyed the same powers 

' Streeter, Papers relating lo the Early History of Maryland, p. 109. 
* Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 16 (note). 

70 



JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 71 

which former Treasurers had, and these were expressly vested 
in him for receiving quit rents. After the Assembly, the new 
Treasurer produced his "Instructions" wherein fines and 
all other perquisites to the King were expressly ' ' within the 
Lymitts of his commission, as allso all Grants of Land were 
first to passe his appbation, [approbation], and allowance and 
upon what tearmes they were to passe was left to his dis- 
cretion." "In which particulars," Kemp remarked, "the 
Governor and Counsell had just cause to doubt what his 
Intendments were." ' 

The Secretary furthermore complained that the Governor's 
main subsistence was taken away. All Governors would 
therefore be obliged to demand means from the people since 
the pension of the King would suffice to maintain that official 
in a manner proper to his dignity. With regard to grants of 
land, he says that the terms have always been certain as given 
by the "Antient Charter" and have been successively con- 
firmed to the Governor and Council. The sudden change, 
consequently is a cause of distraction to the people as well as a 
source of discouragement to those "who serve his matie here 
in the places of Governor and Counsell." ■■ 

Kemp then lays before Lord Baltimore some of his own 
grievances. "The Office and benefit of the Invoices" which 
formerly belong to the Secretary now pertain to the Treas- 
urer. He then states that he is informed that Hawley's 
purposes are to gain the profits of the " Patten ts," and to 
have the keeping of the seals. What fees are left to the 
Secretary will accordingly not clothe and pay one clerk 
yearly. He then voices his grievance that though his labor 
is doubled, he does not receive the same allowance as former 
Secretaries.^ 

The question logically arises as to the reasons why 
Secretary Kemp addressed this complaint to Lord Baltimore. 
The reason is found in the conclusion of his letter. "Why 
I have taken the boldness to trouble yor Lorpp wth this 

' Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 153. 
' Ibid., pp. 153-4. 
' Ibid., p. 154. 



72 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Relation, without the Least Intimation heerein to any other, 
with favor I am thus induced. Because I receive from un- 
doubted Information that the efTect of Mr. Hawlye his busi- 
ness proceeded from yor Lorpps favour in his behalf. I am 
from my owne assurance as confident that yor Lorpps intents 
had noe aime eyther of publiq greivance, or lessening those 
whose service you may please in any tryall to conmiand. All 
wch therefore I humbly tender to yor Lorpps consideration."* 

Writing to his brother, on April 25, 1638, GovernorLeonard 
Calvert makes certain accusations against Jerome Hawley. 
"I am informed," he says, "tht upon occasion of discourse 
given before Sr Jhon Harvey Mr. Jemp and Mr. Hawley by 
Mr. Boteler whether Palmers He were within the Province 
of Maryland or no Mr. Hawley did so weackly defend your 
title to it that Boteler grew more confident of proceeding in 
planting it for his Brother Cleyborne and I have some reason 
to thinck that Mr. Hawley did willingly let your title fall for 
some designe sake of his owne upon trade wth the Sasqua- 
hannoughs wch he might conceive better hopes to advance 
by its depenice on Virginia then on Maryland." ' 

The Governor then goes on to say that when he held a 
Council meeting at St. Mary's concerning the expedition to 
Kent Island with the purpose of putting a stop to the planting 
of the Island by Boteler and Smith, Hawley "earnestly 
diswaded it" by bringing up every reason in his power to 
make Lord Baltimore's title doubtful and to show that it 
would be unlawful to hinder these men from planting there. 
Hawley did all this despite the fact that the argument was 
brought forth that their being there would be most dangerous 
to the Marylanders since Boteler and Smith would incite the 
Indians against them and might even furnish the savages 
with weapons against them. If the expedition were given 
up, all hope of a treaty with the Indians would be set at 
naught. 

The letter then proceeds as follows: "I beleeve the faire 
promises wch he made you in England when you procured 

« Ibid., pp. 154-5. 
' Ibid., pp. 187-8. 



JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 73 

the prefermt he hath in Virginia how usefull he would prove 
to your Colony by it, will never be performed by him for 
nothing moveth him but his owne ends and those he intend- 
eth wholly to remove from Maryland and place them in 
Virginia, and intendeth shortly to remove his wife and family 
thither, I am sorry it was your ill fortune to be a meanes of so 
much good to him who is to ingrateful for it." * 

Calvert then informs his brother that Hawley disclaims 
that he ever sought the aid of Lord Baltimore or that he 
ever had any designs of procuring the Proprietary's influence 
toward securing this position for him. This information, 
the Governor tells Cecilius Calvert, was communicated to 
him by Cornwaleys.^ 

Captain Cornwaleys was fully aware of the disfavor into 
which his friend had fallen with Governor Calvert. That 
the Captain did not believe all the accusation against Mr. 
Hawley is apparent from his letter written on April 6, 1638.'° 
In it he utters a strong defence on behalf of his fellow Coun- 
cillor, as follows : 

"Newes I know yr Lop lookes for non but what concernes 
the Commonwealth of Maryland in wch what I am defective 
I doubt not but yr Secretary will Supply whoe is as quick as 
I am Slow in writeing, and therefore in that part A verry fit 
Subject for the place hee bears, And if hee proves not tooe 
Stiff A maintayner of his owne opinions, and Somewhat tooe 
forward in Sugiesting new businesses for his owne imploy- 
ment, hee may perhaps doe God and yr Lop good Service 
heere I should be Sorry toe Change Mr. Hawley for him 
whoe I perceave stands not soe perfect in yr Lops favoure as 
I could wish him wch perhaps some takeing Advantage at, 
and willing for toe fish in trobled waters, may by discourteous 
proceedeings towards him make him weary of unproffitable 
Maryland, And fors him toe A Change more for his peace 
and ProfRt. As Doubtles Virginia would bee toe him if he 

' Ihid., pp. 188-9. 

9 Ibid., p. 189. 

"> This letter of Thomas Cornwaleys is the same one quoted extensively in 
the preceding chapter. Owing to the diversity of the topics, it was deemed 
best not to consider the document in any one chapter, but rather to use the 
information as demanded by the various events described in different chapters. 



74 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

make good what hee hath undertaken, of wch I see no other 
LikeUhood if hee have not left his worst Enemies behinde 
him, Among wch number I am Sorry toe see such probabillety 
of yr Lops beeing on as I perceave there is. Wliat reasons 
you have for it is unknowne toe mee, nor doe I presume toe 
Judg where the fault is. All that I wish as A Poore friende of 
his, is that yr Lop rightly understood him for from thens I 
verrely beleeve doth flow those Jealosyes that I preceave are 
risen betwixt you, wch beeing increast by misapprehentions of 
Contentious Spirits must certaynely if not in time prevented 
by some Charitable reconsiliation breake forth with such 
vyolens as will endanger the noe little prejudice of on or both 
of you. I Assure yr Lop did I know any Just Cause toe 
Suspect his Sincerety toe Maryland, or the designe wee came 
upon, I should not bee soe Confydent of his Innosence in 
deserving toe ill from you or this Place. I cannot my Lord 
Suppose A httle verball vehemensy uttered in the defens 
of A mans owne Supposed right, Suffitient toe Conclude him 
guilty of looseing all former respects toe greater obligations, 
wch if it bee soe greate A Crime I am toe seeke where I 
should finde on that would bee free when he Supposeth Iris 
right unjustly questioned. I must confes I cannot pleade 
not guilty, and yet I doubt not but my greatest Enemies doe 
really beleeve mee for toe bee as I am A most unfayned 
friende toe Maryland. And soe I am confident will Mr. 
Hawley Apeere if you will give him time and ocation for toe 
manifest it, and not by vyolent discourtesyes upon uncertain 
suppositions fors him toe Change his good intentions yr Lop 
knowes how many diflficultyes hee past in England, nor hath 
hee beene exempt from the like in these parts, and therefore 
hee is not too bee blamed for laying howld of some probable 
way toe repayre his many misfortunes, there beeing noe 
Antipothy betwixt that and the continueing of his respects 
untoe yr. Lop. Well may the dischargeing of the office hee 
hath undertaken invite him sometimes toe Looke towards 
Virginia, but certaynely not with prejudice toe Maryland, 
from whens hee receaves the greatest Comforts that the 



JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 75 

World affords him both for Sowle and body the on from the 
Church the other from his wife, whoe by her comportment in 
these difficult affayrs of her husbands, hath manifested as 
much virtue and discrestion as can bee expected from the 
Sex she owes, whose Industrious huswifery hath soe Adorned 
this Desert, that should his discouragements fors him toe 
withdraw himself and her, it would not A Little Eclips the 
Glory of Maryland." '' 

Jerome Hawley also expresses a word in self-defence in a 
letter written from Virginia on May 8, 1638, to Sir Francis 
Windebanke. At the close of his letter he writes: " Since my 
coming to the place of Treasurer, I have decerned some under- 
hand oppositions made against me, but littell hathe appeared 
in publick, therefore I can not particularly laye it to any 
man's charge. And because I finde that it chiefly aims at the 
hindering me in making any benefitte of my place (whereof I 
assure your Honour I have not yet made the value of five 
pound towards my charges) I doe therefore make it my 
humble sute unto your Honour that you wilbe pleased to move 
the King in my behalfe and procure His Majesties warrant 
for my fees, to the effect of this I send enclosed, which being 
added to your former favours, will much encrease my 
obligations to your Honour." '^ 

From the letters of Kemp and Calvert on the one hand, and 
of Cornwaleys and Hawley on the other, we realize that there 
are two sides to the question as in every discussion. To us, 
it seems that the arguments redounded to Hawley's favour. 
Whether he was vindicated, we cannot tell. Streeter, in the 
brief biography of Hawley contained in his Papers relating 
to the Early History of Maryland, writes in reference to 
Hawley's letter to Windebanke: "Within this despatch in 
the State Paper Office, was enclosed the form of a warrant 
from the king, granting to Jerome Hawley, Treasurer of 
Virginia, power to appoint deputies for viewing tobacco, and 
to receive as his lawful fee, one pound of tobacco for every 
hundred weight of the same, viewed by him or his deputies, 



" Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 179-81. 
" Streeter, op. cit., p. 120. 



76 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

but whether this was a form transmitted by the petitioner or 
a warrant drawn by authority of the king, in comphance with 
his petition, we cannot say." " 

WTiatever may have been the result of Cornwaleys' appeal 
in his friend's behalf or of the petition addressed to Sir 
Francis Windebank, Jerome Hawley was soon to be beyond 
the harm of vituperation where the good or evil report of 
men matters naught. In a previous chapter, we have alluded 
to the sickness that prevailed during the year 1638. The 
fellow Councillor and friend of Cornwaleys died early in 
August of that year, probably a victim to the disease.'"* 

Among the Annual Letters of the English Province of the 
Society of Jesus, in the one for that year regarding the 
Mission of Maryland, we read of the death of a man who 
was the beneficiary of the ministrations of the Fathers, and 
whom Father Hughes believes to have been Jerome Hawley.''' 
The account reads: "Several of the chief men have, through 
the use of the Spiritual Exercises, been formed by us to 
piety; a fruit by no means to be despised. In one especial 
case we adore the wonderful providence and mercy of God, 
which brought a man encompassed in the world with many 
difficulties, and obliged to live in Virginia constantly deprived 
of all spiritual aid, to promise, not long before his death, that 
he whould undertake these Exercises. This intention was 
prevented by a severe sickness which he bore with the 
greatest patience, fixing his mind firmly on God; and at 
length, having duly received all the sacraments, in a state 
of most unusual peace he gave back his soul to God, which 
had been so full of troubles and disquietudes." " 

In Hawley's will, made at the time of leaving England 
with the first colonists, he had appointed residents of the 
mother country as his executors. Thomas Cornwaleys was, 
however, appointed administrator of his estate for reasons 

" Ibid. 

"Ibid., p. 121. 

" Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Vol. i, Text, p. 337. 

" Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, Vol. m, p. 
371. This work contains the Enghsh version of the letter quoted. The 
Latin version is to be found in Hughes, op. cit.. Documents, Vol. i, Part i, p. 112. 



JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS li 

which shall be seen below. In the records of the Provincial 
Court, we find the following entry: 

administration of mr Hawleys estate granted to the 
Captaine, mr The: Cornwaleys Esq &. the Inventary 
to be brought in within a moneth, and the Accompt 
within a twelve moneth. date 2. August 1638." 

The records contain a document from the Proprietor appoint- 
ing him to this office. From it, we find that Hawley's will 
was dated October 20, 1G33. Owing to the distance at which 
the three original executors mentioned in the will lived, it 
was deemed expedient by Cecilius Calvert to appoint Corn- 
waleys administrator "of the goods and chattells" of Jerome 
Hawley, on August 14, 1638. The Captain was ordered to 
exhibit to Secretary Lewger "a true and perfect Inventary of 
all the said goods & chattells within one moneth after the 
date hereof." The full account of his administration was to 
be made to the same official whenever he was called upon to 
do so.'* 

A memorandum was then filed "that this day came 
Thomas Cornwaleys Esq &c and acknowledgeth himselfe to 
owe unto the Lord Proprietarie of this Province and his 
heires one thousand pound sterhng, to be levied upon the 
lands goods and chattells of the said Thomas Cornwaleys &c 
The condition of ths Recognizance is that if the said Thomas 
Cornwaleys shall well and truely performe the Conmiission of 
Administration of the goods and chattells of Jerome Hawley 
late Esq deceased, bearing date the day of August 1638 in 
all the severall contents thereof, wherewith the said Thomas 
Cornwaleys is charged in the said Commission, then this 
Recognizance to be void, or els to stand in full force." '* 

On April 20, 1639, Thomas Cornwaleys delivered to the 
Court the account of his administration of the goods of 
"Jerome Hawley late of St. Maries Esq deceased." We take 
the liberty of giving this account in full as found in the records 
of the Provincial Court. It will not be without interest as 

" IV — Archives of Maryland, Court, p. 39. 
"Ibid., p. 41. 
" Ibid. 



78 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

showing the amount of Mr. Hawley's estate and containing 
the names of some of the earhest colonists of Maryland. 
Furthermore it will show the financial status of some, whose 
debts it was deemed necessary to mark down as " desperate." 

Thomas Cornwaleys debitor to the estate of Jerome Hawley 
as foUoweth *• 

1 s d 

to goods received, as p Inventary 849 06 9 

to a debt received of Thomas Hebden 003 12 6 

to a debt received of John dandie 003 13 3 

to a debt received of John Wyatt 000 17 

to a bill from Cyprian Throughgood 005 07 

to a bill from Anthony Cotton 008 17 6 

to rec of Capt : Evelin & Company, a debt of 1824 1 tob : 022 16 



894 06 



to desperate debts upon bills as followeth 

from Thomas Bradnock & Richard Purlivant; 1500 1 

tob 
from wiUiam medcalfe 500 1 tob: 
from Ed: Comins & Tho: Pett, 800 1 tob: 
from Robt Philpott, and Laurence Mollock ; 777 1 tob. 
from will: Coxe and John Smith, 450 1 



totall 

p contra Credr 

by expended for funerall charges 

by paid the tailor for mourning clothes 

by paid in Surgeons bills 

by housekeeping defraj^ed 40. dales 

by paid the praisers for their paines 

by paid mr Lewger for a debt due to Tho : Cullamore 002 

by paid ditto for a debt due to himselfe 

by paid Leonard Calvert Esq for a debt due to him 

by paid Robt Percy for wages 

by paid John haLfehead for work done 

by paid RandoU Revell for worke 

by paid An Smithson for wages 

by 3. bbrels corne paid to will: Lewis 

by paid my selfe for a debt due upon specialtie and 

Accompt 
by paid to the Lord Baltemore upon judgement 



018 


15 





006 


05 





010 


00 





009 


14 


6 


005 


12 


6 


050 


07 





944 


13 


- 


1 


s 


d 


005 


00 





003 


00 





005 


00 





005 


00 





004 


04 





002 


00 





001 


00 





001 


06 





001 


05 





002 


15 





000 


15 





001 


04 





001 
J 


04 





410 


00 





234 


04 


4 



^0 Ibid., pp. 100-1. 



1 


s 


d 


012 


00 





015 


00 





005 


00 





009 


00 





014 


00 





005 


07 





015 


10 





012 


10 





008 


10 





010 


00 






JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 79 



by paid Andrew Chappell upon judgemt 

by paid Edward Brent for wages 

by paid Xpofer Plunkett for wages 

by paid John Cook for wages 

b}' paid Richard Hill for wages 

bj' paid Cyprian Throughgood upon judgement 

by paid Anthony Cotton upon judgemt 

by paid Richard Gardner upon judgemt 

by expended in suits and Court fees 

by so much allowed for my paines 

by paid Capt : Evelin & company for wages of Edmond 

deering 002 02 

by paid Thomas Capley. Esq in part of a debt recovered 

by judgemt 087 09 8 

by bills of desperate debts delivered to the said mr 

Coply toward further satisfaction of his debt 050 07 

944 13 

This account is followed by a letter from the Proprietary 
approving of the manner in wliich the Captain discharged 
his duties as administrator. It runs as follows: 

"Cecilius Lord &c. to all xtian people to whom these 
puts shall come, greeting. Whereas by or Ires of Admraon 
bearing date at St. Maries 14th August 1638 we did ordeine 
& appoint Capt : Thomas Cornwaleys Esq & one of or Counsell 
of or Province of Maryland to be Admrator of the goods & 
chattells within or said Province wch were Jerome Hawley's 
late of St Maries Esq deceased at the time of his death, and 
bound & charged him as well by his corporall Oath as by a 
Recognisance of 1000 pounds sterling, to make a full and 
perfect Inventary of all the said goods and chattells, & to 
render a faithful and true Aecompt thereof when he shoidd 
be theremito called by or Secretary or had otherwise fully 
administred the same According whereunto the said Tho: 
Cornwaleys on 13th September following made & deUvered 
to or Secretary an Inventary of the said goods & chattells 
amounting to the value of 944 pounds 13 shiUings . . . and 
afterward that is to say on 20th Aprill 1639. brought in his 
Aecompt of the said estate to or said Secretary who hath 
diligently perused & examined the same & findeth the f unerall 
expences & other charges reasonably defrayed and the just 



80 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

debts orderly & rightfully discharged by the said Thomas 
Cornwaleys on the behalfe of the said Jerome Hawley to 
amount to the full summe of the estate received, that is to 
say to the simmie of 944 pounds 13 shillings sterling. Know 
ye therefore that we well appro\ang the faithfulness and 
dihgence of the said Thomas Cornwaleys, doe hereby admit 
& approve of his said Accompt, and signifie & declare tht the 
said Tho. Cornwaleys hath fully administered the goods & 
chattells of the said Jerome Hawley; And therefore doe 
hereby quite claime & discharge him of his aforesaid Recog- 
nisance, & of all further Accompt and question touching the 
said Admraon. Witnesse or deare brother Leonard Calvert 
Esq, Leiutent grail of or said Province of maryland. Given 
at St. maries this 29th Aprill 1639." ^^ 



" Ihid., pp. 101-2. 



CHAPTER IX 

CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 

(Continued) 

Toward the close of the eventful year 1638, Lord Baltimore 
sent word to the Governor of his Province to prepare for 
the Third Assembly of Maryland, which was to meet at St. 
Mary's on February 25, 1638. The following summons was 
directed to Captain Cornwaleys:^ 

Cecilius Lord Proprietary &ca to our dear Friend 
& Councillor Thomas Cornwaleys Esqr Greeting 
whereas we have appointed to hold a General 
Assembly of the Freemen of our Province at our Fort 
of St. Marys on the five and twentieth day of 
February next we do therefore hereby will and 
require you that all excuses and delays sett apart you 
repair in Person to the said Assembly at the time and 
Place prefixed there to advise and Consult with us 
touching the important affairs of our Province. 

Given at St. Marys the 18th January 1638. 

The same announcement was made to Mr. Giles Brent, 
Councillor, Mr. Fulk Brent, Mr. Thomas Greene and Mr. 
John Boteler. Notification was furthermore sent to the 
freemen of the various Hundreds, St. Marys, St. Georges, St. 
Michaels ; to Mattapanient and to Kent Island, to elect their 
Burgesses or Representatives for the coming session of the 
Assembly which was done as directed.^ 

The following were the members of the Assembly that met 
at the Fort at St. Mary's, on February 25, 1638: The Lieu- 
tenant General, Leonard Calvert, Captain Thomas Corn- 
waleys, Messrs Fulk Brent, Giles Brent, Secretary Lewger 
and Thomas Greene.' The Delegates were: Messrs Gerard 
and Gray, for St. Mary's; Wickliff and Rebell, for St. 

' / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 27. 

Ubid., pp. 27-31. 

' Note the absence of Boteler though invited by special summons. This 
was the gentleman referred to in connection with the Kent Island disturbance. 
Streeter remarks that his former hostility had been tempered and the Governor 
was desirous of gaining his good will (Streeter, Papers, etc., p. 149). 

81 



82 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Georges; Cauther and Price, for St. Michaels; Bishop, for 
Mattapanient ; and Thomas and Brown, for Kent.^ 

Immediately after assembling, "they removed the As- 
sembly to be held at Saint Johns." '" St. John's was probably 
the mansion house of the manor of St. John's near the town 
of St. Mary's, reserved for the Governor.^ WTien the session 
had convened at this place, the letter of the Proprietary was 
read. It was addressed to Leonard Calvert and gave him 
"full Power and Authority" in the Assembly to assent to 
such legislation which he thought good and necessary for 
the government of the Province after it had passed with the 
approval of the freemen of the Province or of the majority 
of them. These laws were to be, in as far as possible, 
conformable to the laws of the mother country and were to 
hold till Lord Baltimore or his heirs should set them aside. ^ 
The Proprietary was led to this resolution of allowing the 
governed to originate their laws because he saw that to 
insist on his right to suggest the laws would only lead to 
difficulties that would retard the progress of the colony. 
Consequently he decided to waive his claim to the initiative 
and to concede to the Marylanders the right to legislate for 
themselves. Futhermore, the code already prepared was 
not given his approval for this very reason.* 

On the first day of the Assembly, Cuthbert Fenwick and 
Robert Gierke claimed a voice as not having assented to the 
election of the Burgesses from St. Mary's and they were 
admitted to membership in the law-making body. It seems 
that the two men rested content with having established their 
right for their presence is not noted in the subsequent acts 
of this session.^ The Orders to be observed during the 
sessions were substantially the same as those in force during 
the Second Assembly with several new ones. Thus any late 
arrival was to be amerced twenty pounds of tobacco which 

< / — Archives, p. 32. 

* Ibid. 

^ Scharf, History of Maryland, Vol. i, p. 131. 

' / — Archives, pp. 31-2. 

' Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 148. 

' / — Archives, p. 32; also Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 105. 



CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (COXTINXJEd) 83 

was to be "paid to the use of the house." Another ran as 
follows : ' ' After any Bill hath been once read in the house the 
Bill shall be read ingrossed or utterly rejected and upon any 
day or day [sic] appointed for a Session all Bills engrossed 
shall be put to the question and such as are assented to by 
the Greater part of the house and if the Votes be equal that 
shall be judged the Greater part which hath the Consent of 
the Lieutenant General shall be undersigned by the Secretary 
in these words the freemen have assented and after that the 
President shall be demanded his assent in the name of the 
Lord proprietary and if his assent be to the Bill, the Bill shall 
be undersigned by the said Secretary in these words the 
Lord Proprietary willeth that this be a Law." '•* 

The action of this Assembly was varied and important. 
However, since no detailed account is given as to the opinions 
of the members on the laws as they were discussed, it will 
suffice to give briefly the import of the legislation effected 
wliich laid the foundation of the religious, civil and social 
organization of the Province. The most important laws 
framed were of this tenor, that "Holy Church within this 
province shall have all her rights and priviliges," " "The 
Lord Proprietarie shall have all his rights and prerogatives," 
"The Inhabitants of this Province shall have all their rights 
and hberties according to the great Charter of England." 
Crimes and misdemeanors were defined, and their penalties 
fixed, courts were estabhshed and their jurisdiction deter- 
mined, inferior officers provided for and their oaths of 
office set down, a military estabhshment was ordered; in 
short, to use the words of Streeter, "the whole machinery of 
government planned and prepared to be set in motion." '- 
The sessions came to a close on March 19, 16.38. 

This Assembly, hke the preceding, was not confined merely 
to legislation. Sometimes it assumed the functions of a 



"7 — Archives, p. .33. 

" Much has been written to show that was meant by the phrase "Holy 
Church." Briefly, it meant in this case, no particular church provided it was 
a church that professed a Ijelief in Christ. 

'2 Streeter, op. cil., p. 151. 



84 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Court to try both civil and criminal cases. An instance of 
the latter will not be without interest as it shows the dif- 
ferent temperaments of the men who formed the Assembly. 
The proceedings of the trial itself are not recorded. We 
only have the account of the opinions of the members as 
to what punishment was meted out to the culprit. The 
record of the event reads as follows: "Then was caUed John 
Richardson & charged with flight & Carrying away the Goods 
unlawfully from his Master & found Guilty by the whole 
house and adjudged by the house to be whipped three 
several times." Five were in favor of inflicting the penalty 
just mentioned. Mr. Greene thought that he should be 
hanged. The two Brents voted for whipping him "very 
severely"; the Captain, that he should "be whipped pro- 
vided that he be Sorrowful for his fault"; and the Governor, 
that he "be laid in Irons and whipped three several times 
very severely." " 

On two occasions, namely, on March 1st and March 7th, 
Captain Thomas Cornwaleys "was amerced for tardie," 
twenty pounds of tobacco.'^ 

On the day following the close of the Assembly, the Court 
was opened at St. Mary's. At the first session, the various 
officers of the Province who formed part of the same took the 
oaths prescribed, namely, the Oath of Allegiance to the King 
and the oath which each man was obliged to take in virtue 
of the office he held in the Province. The oath to the King 
was defined at the last Assembly^ Thomas Cornwaleys 
took, besides the Oath of Allegiance, the one appointed for a 
Counsellor.'" 

On April 25, 1639, Governor Calvert issued instructions to 

Secretary Lewger to draw up the following document: '^ 

These are to will and Require you to draw a Com- 
mission to Captain Thomas Cornwaleys Esqr &ca 
for the hearing and determining of any Civil Causes 

" / — Archives, p. 37. 
'I /bid., pp. 36-7. 

''■^JII — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 85. 
' '« For the Oath of a Counsellor, see / — Archives, p. 45. 
" /// — Archives, p. 85. 



CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (CONTINUED) 85 

hapning during my Absence from St. Marys in the 
same manner as I my Self might do by the Law of 
the Province. 

Just how long this commission of the Captain lasted can- 
not be stated with certainty. One month is the longest 
period during which it could have held force since we find in 
thejrecords of the Council that the Governor was again at 
his post on May 28th. When Calvert returned. Cornwaleys 
carried out his long desired plan of going to England. Just 
whenihe set sail is a matter of conjecture. On May 29th, 
the Lieutenant General issued an appointment to Giles 
Brent as Captain of the mihtary forces of the colony since 
the militia was ' ' destitute of a Captain to lead and Command 
them and to exercise them in the discipline Mihtary." '^ 

Just what took the Captain to his native land has not come 
down to us. Various opinions may be formed however, as 
to his intention. Most probably he wished to see his wife 
who was there. In his letter of the previous year, he referred 
to her condition being such as to indispose her to manage 
his affairs." And we have no reference to her having come to 
Maryland in the interim. Streeter supposes that the man- 
agement of Hawley's estate took him to England.-" In the 
letter of the Captain referred to, he also expressed the wish 
to have an interview with Cecihus Calvert. Whatever may 
have been his design, his stay there was not protracted 
beyond a year and a half. 

During Cornwaleys' absence from the Province, a session 
of the Legislature convened at St. John's on October 12, 
1640. Previous to its opening, on September 19, 1640, the 
following summons was issued by the Governor in the name 
of the Proprietary to Cuthbert Fenwick, Attorney of Corn- 
waleys : 

Caecilius &ca to our trusty Cuthbert Fennick Gent 
Atty within this Province of our right trusty &ca 
Greeting whereas we have appointed to hold a 
General Assembly at St. Marys on monday the 

i« Ibid., p. 86. 

" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 170. 

" Streeter, op. cit., p. 152. 



88 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

The laws framed at this session were published under the 
Great Seal on March 26, 1642. 

The next session of the legislature opened on July 18, 1642. 
The body consisted of the Burgesses and others called by 
special writs. At the opening of the same, Robert Vaughn, a 
member from Kent Island, proposed to separate the House; 
one part to be made up of the Burgesses. This the Governor 
refused to sanction. The separation of the House into two 
chambers later became the law of the Province.^" The 
essential business brought to the attention of the legislators, 
was an expedition against the Indians which met with decided 
opposition. The Governor then informed them that it 
was not his purpose to ask their advice or consent in the 
matter. The power of making war rested, in virtue of the 
Charter, with the chief executive. He merely wanted to 
know what assistance they could render in case he decided 
to proceed against the savages. The Secretary then pro- 
posed that twenty pounds of tobacco be levied upon each 
man to defray the expenses of such an expedition. The 
action on the bill was postponed and was not again brought 
up during the sessions.^^ Other legislation dealt chiefly with 
judicial matters and the Assembly came to a close on August 
1st. Calvert's intentions with regard to punishing the 
hostile Indians were not frustrated by the opposition of the 
Assembly. What action he took in this difficulty will be 
the subject of a succeeding chapter. 

We now come to the important Assembly which began its 
business on September 5, 1642. During the sessions, Thomas 
Cornwaleys held a great number of proxies, on one day 
having as high as eleven, and on another, as many as nine- 
teen.'- No other member had as many proxies on any day 
of the sessions. This Assembly was composed of all the 
freemen of the Province. 

On the first day, the Governor, Captain Cornwaleys, Mr. 
Brent, the Secretary, the Surveyor, Mr. Weston and Mr. 

3" Ibid., p. 130. 

'i/6id., pp. 130-1. 

'= Ibid., pp. 167, 172, 173, 174, 176, 180. 



CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (CONTINUED) 



89 



Greene were appointed a Committee to draw up a bill 
touching a war to be made on the Indians and other matters 
pertaining to the safety of the colony.'^ This group of men 
reported the bill in the afternoon session. The Governor 
demanded exemption from the levy of men provided for in 
the document submitted. His request was refused by a vote 
of one hundred to thirty-eight. 

On September 6th, the Governor offered a measure for 
the repeal of all laws enacted at the preceding Assembly. The 
same committee mentioned above was appointed, with the 
exception that Mr. Weston's seat was to be occupied by 
Mr. Whitcliff, to draw up other suggestions for the safety of 
the colony. In the afternoon of the same day, the Captain 
was named as one of a committee of eight to consider bills 
to be propounded on the next day that the body met.^^ 

The committee, at the time appointed, submitted several 
bills among which was one providing for officers. This had 
been construed as giving the Governor power to compel a 
freeman to serve in such offices as that official was pleased 
to bestow, provided a reasonable fee was aUowed. Corn- 
waleys and Brent offered a determined opposition to the 
passage of this law, on the ground that it was unnecessary. 
Besides it gave away their hberties and was unlimited in 
giving the Governor a right to force men to the office of 
Sheriff, as well as others, thus "against common right and 
decency compelling men to be hangmen." Calvert was 
willing to make a concession with regard to compelhng 
anyone to become an executioner.^*^ The bill was, however, 

defeated.'^ 

On the morning of September 12, the report of the com- 
mittee was read before the assembled freemen. Twenty-five 
bills were proposed. A provision was made by the Com- 
mittee that the laws should last for three years. To this 
Calvert objected. When the question was submittea to 
discussion, it was found that twenty-six "voices" were in 

^^Ibid., p. 171. 
M Ibid., pp. 174-5. 
35 Ibid., p. 175. 
» Ibid., p. 179. 



90 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

favor of the legislation enduring till the first meeting of the 
next Assembly. Among the voters were the Governor, who 
held three votes and the Secretary, with four. Forty-six 
were in favor of the laws having their force till the first 
meeting of the next Assembly with the proviso that, in case 
none were called before the lapse of three years, they were 
to hold for that period of time. Captain Cornwaleys and 
Mr. Brent, with their proxies, voted that they should have 
their vigor for three years. In the afternoon the question 
was again discussed. The voting resolved itself to two 
opinions. That they should endure for three years or else 
to the next meeting of the Assembly in case one was called 
within that time, was favored by the Governor, Mr. Secretary, 
Mr. Surveyor, Mr. Binks, Thomas Hebden and Mr. Weston, 
for themselves and their proxies. That they should last 
"for three years certain" was championed by Captain 
Cornwaleys, Mr. Brent, Mr. Greene, Nicholas Hervey, 
Randoll Rebell, John Medley, Francis Posie and Nicholas 
Cosin, for themselves and their proxies, who carried their 
point." 

On September 13th, the last day of this Assembly, the Bill 
for an Expedition against the Indians again came before the 
House. It was passed by all, except that Captain Corn- 
waleys with "fifteen of his Proxies of St. Michaels hundred " 
voted against it by reason of the clause exempting the ser- 
vants of the Governor.'^ Twenty-five Acts were published 
after this Assembly "at St. Maries under the Great Seale, 
the fifteenth day of September 1642." It is worthy to note 
that after each is added "This Act to endure for three years 
from this present day." ^^ 

During the session of the Assembly which had just closed, 
Cornwaleys and Brent had stirred up considerable opposition 
to various measures. This fact did not prevent the Governor 
from bestowing upon both men responsible public appoint- 
ments. When called upon they were ever ready to give 

" Ibid., pp. 177-9. 

=« Ibid., p. 182. 

» Ibid., pp. 182-198. 



CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (CONTINUED) 91 

their services to the Colony unselfishly. An exception must 
be made to this last statement in the case of the Captain. 
On the records of the Provincial Court we find the following 
entry for September 16, 1642, the day following the publica- 
tion of the Acts of the Assembly: "Captaine Thomas Corn- 
waleys Esq being demanded to take the Oath of a Counsellor 
absolutely refused to be in Commission or to take the 
Oath." The reasons for this unexpected procedure are 
not given. Taken in connection with the course he followed 
in the Assembly, it affords strong ground for the inference 
that the friendly relations between Calvert and Cornwaleys 
were disturbed. Since the Captain, however, was ever 
willing to render every service in his power to the colony in 
other capacities, we think that his refusal to "be in Com- 
mission" was due to dissatisfaction with the legislative 
proceedings. 



CHAPTER X 
Indian Disturbances 

From the foundation of the town of St. Mary's, the 
Maryland settlers strove to live on friendly terms with the 
aboriginal inhabitants. Amicable relations were the order 
of the day. The object of Lord Baltimore in using every 
means in his power to conciliate the tribes was chiefly to 
civihze them and to bring to the benighted children of the 
forest the light of the Gospel. From the annual letters of 
the Jesuits we receive glowing accounts of the success of the 
missionaries. Several chieftains were won over from false 
worship to the cult of the one true God. Following the 
example of their leaders many of the savages embraced the 
true faith. In fact, the early days of the colony were 
singularly free from hostile demonstration on the part of 
the Indians. 

There were other tribes living on the frontiers of the 
Province who were inimical not only to the colonists but to 
the Indians who were the friends of the settlers. With 
these, Governor Calvert had to reckon. The cause of their 
hostility was chiefly due to the intrusion of the colonists. 
The Piscatoway and Patuxent tribes were the friends of the 
Marylanders. The Susquehanocks were the enemies of 
both the Indian and English inhabitants of Maryland. They 
were the principal enemies with which the colonists had to 
deal. Some eastern shore Indians also acted in a manner as 
to render it necessary to adopt measures to repel them. 

As early as May 28, 1639, the Governor and Council saw 
fit to arm the colonists for repeUing any attack on the part of 
the Indians of the eastern shore.' The Susquehanocks were 
also mentioned in this proclamation. For further protection, 
it was thought wise to arm the colonists, particularly those 
living about St. Mary's, for purposes of defence. Mr. Giles 
Brent was appointed on May 29, 1639, Captain of the 



' /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 85. 
92 



INDIAN DISTURBANCES 93 

military forces, next in rank to the Governor, and was 
ordered to train the inhabitants in martial exercises.- He 
was also directed to provide for arms and ammunition. In 
this commission to Brent, Leonard Calvert refers to the 
absence of Captain Cornwaleys. From the Governor's 
words, it is evident that, had Cornwaleys been available, he 
would undoubtedly have been his choice for the post. The 
reason of Cornwaleys not being able to assume the charge was 
due to his preparations for his visit to England described in a 
previous chapter. Up to this time, he had been looked to as 
the main reliance of the colonists in their encounters with the 
natives or other enemies. 

Strict injunctions were issued to the settlers that no 
weapons were to be sold to the savages. Parties were sent 
to punish the marauding Maquantequats.' The old friends 
of the colony, the Patuxents, were, by a public proclamation 
on January 24, 1639, declared under the protection of the 
English, and all persons were forbidden to do them violence.^ 

When the Susquehanocks on the north, and the Wicomeses 
and Nanticokes on the east, made inroads on the territory 
of the Marylanders, Calvert found it necessary to issue 
another proclamation, on July 10, 1641.^ In it, he obliged 
the settlers to be on their guard against the Indians. Any 
person who harbored a savage was amenable to martial law. 
Besides, he authorized the people of Kent to shoot any Indian 
that should make his appearance on the island." 

Since the Indians about Maryland continued their hos- 
tihties, probably with increased violence, it was deemed 
advisable to introduce a rigorous military discipline among the 
inhabitants than had hitherto been practised. Accordingly, 
certain orders were promulgated, on June 23, 1642, "upon 
pain of death or other penalties, as by Severity of Martiall 
Law may be inflicted" : 



2 Ibid., p. 86. 
2 Ibid., p. 87. 
< Ibid. 
' Ibid. 

" Streeter, Papen relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 102; also Ill- 
Archives, p. 98. 



94 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

That noe Inhabitant or housekeeper entertain any 
Indian upon any colour of License, nor doe permit 
to any Indian any Gunn powder and Shott. 

That all housekeepers provide fixed gunn and 
Sufficient powder and Shott for each person able to 
bear arms. 

Noe man to discharge three Gunns within the space 
of one quarter of an hour nor concurr to the discharge- 
ing Soe many, except to give or Answer alarm. 

Upon the hearing of an Alarum every housekeeper 
to answer and continue it Soe far as he may. 

Noe man able to bear arms to goe to church or 
Chappell or anj' considerable distance from home 
without fixed gunn and one Charge at least of powder 
and Shott. 

Of these every one required to take notice upon 
pain of Content, for better execution, the Serjt to 
inform the Lieutent Governor or Captaine.^ 

On August 18, 1642, Captain Cornwaleys was again placed 
in charge of nailitary operations in the colony. His com- 
mission made him Captain General of the army. The same 
was issued "to lea vie men and Command them, and use all 
power and means conduceing in his discretion to the 
resistance and Castigacon of the enemies and vanquishing 
of them in as full and ample manner as any Capt General of 
any army may, and requiring all officers and soldiers &c to 
be obedient and asssitant to him upon paines as may be 
Inflicted by Martiall Law." * 

At this juncture, one of the settlements at Piscataway was 
attacked, the inhabitants murdered, and a large amount of 
plunder carried away. Even the Jesuit missionaries, devoted 
and fearless as they were, began seriously to think of aban- 
doning their station, and establishing themselves at Potu- 
paco (Port Tobacco), which was less exposed to the ravages 
of the cruel and ever active Susquehanocks. On the east also, 
the savages had begun their bloody work. Even the peace- 
ful Patuxents, so long the friends of the Marylanders, showed 
signs of an aggressive and hostile spirit.^ This action seems 

' 1 1 I—Archives, p. 103. 

« Ibid., p. 106. 

' Streeter, op. cil., pp. 167-8. 



INDIAN DISTURBANCES 95 

to have been the result of the Governor's determination 
despite the opposition of the Assembly to undertake an 
expedition against the Indians.'" 

Five days after Cornwaleys' appointment, Calvert ad- 
dressed a letter to Governor Berkeley of Virginia. The 
message recounts the aggressions of the savages. Five 
Virginians and eight Marylanders had been barbarously 
massacred. For the vindication of the "Honour of our 
Nation" and to avenge the murder of the colonists, he asks 
Berkeley to furnish one hundred men, well armed, to meet 
the same number of the Maryland forces. On October 1st, 
they are to meet at Kent Island and together to inflict 
condign chastisement on their insolent and merciless ene- 
mies." As a measure of precaution, Henry Bishop was 
authorized to take command of the fort at Patuxent, which 
was to be a place of rendezvous of the inhabitants of the 
vicinity in case of danger.'- Furthermore, notice was 
issued on August 28th, providing for the safety of the 
settlers in case of any sudden attack, and indicating the 
strongholds within prescribed districts, to which women and 
children could fly for protection." Finally the following 
was published: 

Proclamation By the Lieutent Generall 

These are to publish and declare that the Sesqui- 
hanowes, Wicome.ses, and Nantacoque Indian.s, are 
enemies of this Province, and as such are to be 
reputed & proceeded against by all persons. Given 
at St Maries Sept 13th 1642 

Leonard Calvert '"' 

On September 13, 1642, the bill was passed for an expedi- 
tion against the Indians. This act empowered the Governor, 
or any Captain or Captains under him, to organize an expe- 
dition against the Susquehanocks, or any Indians who had 
participated in the late ravages in the colony. It authorized 

'" / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 130. 
" /// — Archives, p. 106. 
■2 Jbid., p. 107. 
" Jbid. 
"Ibid., p. 116. 



96 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

him to take out of every county or hundred, every third man 
able to bear arms. The Governor and his servants were 
exempted from being reckoned in any hundred "to any 
purpose of tliis Act." It was this phrase to which, as we 
have seen in the previous chapter, Cornwaleys offered an 
objection. The various hundi-eds were to defray the 
expenses of arming and otherwise equipping the men. 
Provisions were to be supplied in the same way. The 
freemen of the hundreds were to judge the number of men 
and the amount of ammunition, food, etc., to be contributed 
by them."^ 

Though Governor Calvert was convinced of the grave 
necessity of an expedition against the Indian marauders for 
the welfare and even the existence of the Colony, and 
pressed his designs with dogged earnestness, various cir- 
cumstances arose to thwart his plans. The letter addressed 
by him to the Governor of Virginia in the latter part of 
August, did not reach James City until October 5th, when 
it was at once put before the Council. That body, on con- 
sideration, decided to send an answer to Calvert, stating 
that it was "impossible to comply with his request, as many 
of the inhabitants were about to remove to new plantations, 
and were hardly able to get arms and ammunition to defend 
themselves; and those remaining upon the old plantations, 
not having a supply of military provisions, besides the heavy 
hand of God's visitation upon the plantations generally, of 
which few have recovered." ^^ 

The resources of the Marylanders were so scanty that it 
seemed almost an act of folly to attempt to organize an 
expedition against such powerful foes, with means so limited. 
The people, moreover, were not minded to undergo the 
hazard and exposure consequent upon a winter's campaign. 
Besides, they were filled with dismay at the prospect of a 
great debt accumulating, in case of a protracted Indian war 
and they were more strongly disposed to bear their hard lot 



'^ / — Archives, pp. 196-7. 

" Streeter, op. cit., quoting Virginia Records, p. 178. 



INDIAN DISTURBANCES 97 

than to risk the possibihty of being subjected to evils that 
would eventuate from such an undertaking.'" Calvert, 
nevertheless, issued a proclamation on January 17, 1642, 
announcing his purpose of providing by all possible care and 
dihgence to provide foi' the safety of the Province, not only 
from all danger of the Indians, but "from feare of any." 
The colonists were authorized to kill any Indian, who should 
show himself, by Ian 1 or water, without a white flag, within 
a district about the Patuxent River.'* The Indians were to 
be forewarned of th? Governor's intent, by sending a mes- 
senger to the neighboring tribes to warn them not to ap- 
proach that territory without showing the prescribed flag. 
On December 1(1, 1(342, the Governor sent out notice of 
his intention of holding an Assembly on February 3rd, but on 
February 1st, he decided that the session could not take 
place.'' One reason for this was Calvert's earnest wish to 
strike a blow at the savages, and his conviction that a meet- 
ing of the legislature would interfere with his intent.-" He 
had no doubt been in consultation with Captain Cornwaleys 
on the subject. The Captain had decided to undertake an 
expedition and on January 23rd, he received a formal 
commission to this eiTect.-' The settlers were by no means 
as keen as the Governor on this matter, and had shown 
themselves disinclined to enhst in such an undertaking. 
The name of Cornwaleys was, however, a tower of strength, 
and with a view of gaining the good-will of the people and of 
urging them forward, Calvert, after issuing the Captain's 
commission, published the following proclamation: 
By the Leiutent Generall. 
whereas I understand of divers jealousies and 
feares abroad in the colony touching the Indians, and 
the expectation of a great charge & hindrance this 
yeare either in making a march upon them, or in 
guard against them, to the disanimation of the 
people, and foreslowing their usuall diligence & 
alacrity in proceeding in their labours for the next 

" Ibid., p. 178. 

^^ in— Archives, p. 126. 

^^ I— Archives, p. 201. 

2" Streeter, op. ciL, p. 180. 

" Ill—Archives, p. 127. 



98 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

cropp, for reraedie whereof and to assure them of 
what consideration is had of their safeties & ease, I 
thought fitt to pubhsh & declare hereby that all 
possible diligence is & shalbe used for the furnishing 
the country with ammunition, and that (as soon as 
conveniently may be) there shalbe an expedition 
sett forth against the Indian enemies of this Province, 
at the sole charge of his Lop (excepting the psons 
of the souldiers to make the expedition withall, for 
whose service only the country shalbe charged) and 
that Capt. Cornwaleys Esq is appointed & hath 
undertaken to goe as Generall of the said expedition, 
to whom I have given all purchase plunder that 
shalbe made upon the enemy during the said 
expedition, to be bj' him disposed of for the encour- 
agemt of voluntiers, that will sett themselves forth 
& serve at their owne charge, and for the reward of 
his souldiers as he shall find them to deserve. And 
further for the greater encouragemt and reliefe of 
those that shall goe upon this service, I will use all 
circumspection that may be that the said expedition 
shalbe so made, and (by God's helpe) performed that 
it shalbe no considerable hindrance to any ones 
cropp: and that the debts of those whose pnt abilities 
will not reach to the satisfying of their credrs, with- 
out greivous pressure and disabling them for their 
necessary subsistence for the future, I will use 
meanes with their Credrs (if they be inhabitants of 
this Prov;) to forbeare untill the next yeare, wch I 
have already assurance of from some of the chiefest. 
Given at St maries 23. Jan: ^- 

Three days after the promulgation of the above, the 
license given on January 17th, to kill any Indian coming 
within certain limits of the colony, was revoked, except with 
regard to such Indians known to belong either to the 
Susquehanocks or Wicomeses. Public notice was also 
given that a treaty of peace with the Nanticokes was in 
negotiation. In order to arrange the details of the pact, a 
truce of six weeks was declared, during which these Indians 
were under his Lordship's protection.'-' In regard to the 
excepted tribes, every effort was to be brought into play to 
subdue them. But there were great obstacles to be sur- 



22 Jbi^i. 

" Ibid., p. 128. 



INDIAN DISTURBANCES 99 

mounted. The inhabitants were not in sympathy with the 
movement. There was a great scarcity of arms and ammu- 
nition. Besides, the expenses necessary for the undertaking 
were not forthcoming. By the 8th of April, 1643, Leonard 
Calvert decided to abandon his plans for the punishment of 
the savages and announced his intention in the following 
notice : 

Whereas by a Proclamation bearing date at St. 
Maries the 23. January last upon certaine hopes 
then presumed upon of meanes to goe a march upon 
the Sesquihanowes I did declare to the colony that 
there should be an expedition sett forth at his Lops 
charge, with other things therein conteined; wch 
meanes being not yet found answerable to my hopes 
I doe think fitt to advise further of the intended 
expedition; & therefore doe hereby annull & i-evoke 
the said pclamation, & the obligations therein under- 
taken on his Lops behalf e; & all powers and Commis- 
sions therein given touching or concerning the said 
expedition untill I have further considered there- 
upon.^^ 

Aside from the reasons assigned in this proclamation, the 
principal motive seems to have been the sudden determination 
of the Governor to sail for England. In fact, three days 
after, he appointed Giles Brent to act with full powers as 
Governor during his absence.-^ 

After the departure of the Governor, the Council deter- 
mined to organize a company of ten good marksmen, and 
post them, as a garrison, fully armed and equipped, on 
Palmer's Island. They were to keep close watch on the 
movements of the Susquehanocks, whose fort was a few miles 
above the mouth of the Susquehanna River. They were to 
prevent these savages from proceeding down the bay to 
make an attack upon the unprotected frontiers of the colony.-' 

Governor Brent then issued a commission to Captain 
Cornwaleys as Captain General of the army. He was 
empowered to take charge of all mihtary operations on land 
and water within the County of St. Mary's. He was to use 



" Ibid., p. 130. 

^Ihid. 

" Ibid., p. 134. 



100 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

all means possible for levying soldiers. Mutinies were to 
be punished. Any enemies were to be dealt with as occasion 
demanded. In a word, he was to use his discretion toward 
the protection of the inhabitants to the fullest extent of 
power vested in a Captain General.-^ 

Ever since the Marylanders landed at St. Mary's and took 
under their protection the Yaocomeses, the Patuxents and 
the Piscataways, and other neighboring tribes, they reassured 
the disheartened children of the forest by offering such pro- 
tection as they could afford against the conquests and 
plunderings of the fierce Susquehanocks. These Indians, as 
well as the colonists from time to time, had to fear the sudden 
inroads and murders of those savages. At one time, rein- 
forced by some of the Wicomeses, they came in canoes down 
the bay, and landing at Kent, robbed or murdered the 
most exposed inhabitants. Again, moving swiftly up the 
Patuxent, they made deadly attacks upon the planters 
scattered along the neck formed by that river and the 
Potomac. At another time, their fierce war parties, prepared 
for deeds of blood, followed their course in a southwest 
direction over the upper waters of Patapsco, and, suddenly 
emerging from the forest, fell upon the defenceless settlers 
who inhabited the region at the head of the Piscataway. No 
place was secure from their attack. No mercy was to be 
expected when they appeared on the scene.-* 

No wonder then, that a man of strong sympathies and of 
public spirit, Uke Captain Cornwaleys, should have his 
S5anpathy moved and his wrath aroused at the tales of 
cruelty and wrong inflicted by these murderers. Little 
wonder then, that he was determined to retaliate and to 
inflict punishment on these savages, to teach them, if such a 
thing were possible, to respect the lives and the homes of the 
innocent colonists. Accordingly he made the strong resolve 
to throw the weight of his own popularity into the balance. 
Casting aside all reliance on the law to force enlistment of 



" Ibid. 

2* Streeter, op. cit., p. 18&-7. 



INDIAN DISTURBANCES 101 

men, he determined to count entirely upon a sufficient 
number of volunteers who were willing to go with him on such 
an expedition as he had planned, relying on his courage and 
capacity to carry his designs to success. In order to proceed, 
he sought and obtained the consent of Governor Brent, who 
gave his approval by the following authorization : 

Whereas we are informed of your propenseness to 
go a march upon the Sesquihanowes, and that 
several volunteers, to a considerable number, are 
willing and desirous to be led out by you upon such a 
march upon certain conditions treated and agreed 
between you and them, We, approving very well of 
such your and their forwardness for the vindication 
of the honour of God and the Christian and the 
English name, upon these barbarous and inhuman 
Pagans, do hereby authorize you to levy all such men 
as shall be willing to go upon the said march, and to 
lead and conduct them against the Sesquihanowes or 
other Indian enemies of the Province, in such time ' 
and manner as you shall think fit.^* 

Just when and how the Captain carried out his plan of 
warfare with the Indians, the scant records of the time do 
not inform us. From a work published a few years after the 
events here chronicled, on an entirely different subject, we 
can arrive at a few facts, which throw some light on this 
interesting affair.'" 

The author of this book states that the Swedes, then 
settled on the Delaware, and by no means favorably dis- 
posed toward the English settlements, had sold arms and 
ammunition to the savages. Besides, they had hired out 
three of their men to the Susquehanocks, who trained the 
tribes in the methods of European warfare. They had, 
moreover, led the savage band into Maryland and Virginia, 
and assisted them to take the chief of the Potomacs prisoner 
and to subdue eight Indian tribes in Maryland, who had 
been civilized and won over to the English rule. According 
to the writer, the Susquehanocks with their auxiliaries, the 



» Ihid., p. 188. 

* Plantagenet, A Description of the Province of New Albion, American 
Colonial Tracts, Vol. ii, No. 6, p. 17. 



102 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Ihonadoes and Wicomeses, to the number of two hundred 
and fifty, sprang upon the colonists of Maryland. Three 
Englishmen were killed and one Indian. Captain Corn- 
waleys, "that noble, right valiant and pohtic soldier," 
losing but one more man, killed, with fifty-three raw and tired 
Marylanders, twenty-nine savages.^^ Yet this severe chas- 
tisement did not seem to suffice. According to Streeter, the 
Captain made one or more expeditions subsequent to this, 
which must have ended in disaster.'^ 

On June 18, 1644, a conamission was issued to Captain 
Henry Fleete, who was to go to the fort at Piscataway, to 
negotiate with a deputation from the Susquehanocks. In 
the instructions given to Fleete, one article especially directed 
him to obtain the restitution of "as much as you can gett of 
the armes & other goods lost or left in our last march upon 
then^ at least the two feild pieces." He was furthermore 
authorized to conclude peace with these Indians to the 
honor, safety and advantage of the English.'^ 

Before Leonard Calvert sailed for England, relations be- 
tween him and Captain Cornwaleys were not as cordial as 
could have been desired. The reason was likely due to the 
conduct of the late Assembly and the subsequent resigna- 
tion of the Captain from his Counsel. Another event that 
transpired about this time did not by any means serve to 
better matters in this regard. 

On April 12, 1642, a commission was appointed by Lord 
Baltimore, consisting of Leonard Calvert, John Lewger and 
John Langford, to buy from Father Copley a certain house 
and some land connected with it. This house is referred to 
as the "Chappell House." ^^ Thomas Cornwaleys was the 
representative whom Father Copley appointed to act for 
him.^^ The details of this negotiation are given in the records 
of the Provincial Court. 



^' Streeter, op. dl., p. 188-9. 

'2 lUd. 

" III — Archives, pp. 148-9. 

" IV — Archives oj Maryland, Cowl, p. 292. 

3s Ibid., p. 266. 



INDIAN DISTURBANCES 103 

At the instance of Capt Tho: Cornwaleys Esq, the 
Leiutent Grail interrogated Mr Secretary, upon oath 
whether he together with L. G. [sic] & J. L. were 
appointed by instruction from the right noble 
honorable the Lord Baltemore &c to purchase for 
his Lop of mr Copley a certaine house & land 
appteining called the Chappell house; And whether 
did he purchase it or no in his Lops name & for his 
Lops use for the price of 200 1 sterling payable in 
Engl: by bill of exchange, & whether he were not 
ordered to charge bills of Exchange upon his Lop for 
the purchase. And to this Interrogatory mr 
Secretary saith upon his oath, that to the best of his 
remembrance he this deponent and Leonard Calvert 
& John Langford Esqrs, were appointed by In- 
struction from his said Lop to purchase for his Lop 
the chappell house at reasonable price; but whether 
the land appteining to it he remembreth not; & that 
they had order from his Lop (in default of other 
wayes to raise meanes for the purchase) to charge 
bill of exchange for it upon his Lop in England; and 
that they did purchase to the use of his Lop the said 
house & land appteining to it, & some other land 
adjoining, of the said mr Copley (or of the said 
Thomas Cornwaleys or of Cutbert ffennick [Fenwick] 
in the right & to the benefitt of the said mr Copley) 
for the price of 200 1 sterling, certifie under great 
Scale 28. March 1644.^6 

On various occasions, as the accounts of the proceedings in 
the Court inform us, several attempts were made by Corn- 
waleys or Fenwick, acting as his attorney, to obtain payment 
of the two hundred pounds. With what result we shall see 
presently. The Captain appeared, on January 2, 1643. The 
case was examined by Giles Brent, John Lewger and James 
Neale. When Brent asked the opinion of the others, Neale 
held that the acting Governor, Giles Brent, could not proceed 
in the case since his powers were restricted. Brent and 
Lewger thought otherwise. After reviewing the oath of 
Lieutenant General, Brent delared "that according to his 
cunning & skill he found himselfe bound to grant processe in 
the said cause, notwithstanding the mandate to the con- 
trary, the Law of the Province nor the office of Lieutenancy 

"/bid. 



104 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

being either of them abrogated or restraint!, & therefore 

judged the process should be granted to the plf."'" He then 

gave Cornwalej's an opportunity of bringing his case before 

the court on February 1st. 

^^^len Cornwaleys appeared to prosecute Calvert, Lewger 

and Langford, as directed by Brent, Lewger testified as 

follows: 

That he hath received no satisfaction nor any 
thing in value for wch he charged the said bill, al- 
thoughe he acknowledged it upon the bill, for the 
forme of it ; but only took a house to his Lops use at 
the price of the 200 pounds charged in the Bill, wch 
house his Lop refuseth as not valuably bought, & the 
house relinquished to the plf. in the state as then it 
was, & therefore prayeth in equity that he be not 
compelled to pay the said mony, in regard the party 
for whom he bought it will not receive the house, nor 
is any thing yet received for that mony: & if the bill 
be recovered, he denieth the damage demanded.** 

The Lieutenant General then "demanded whether there 
was any reservation upon the bargaine to rehnquish it if 
disliked." The defendant was not able to prove any such 
reservation. The plaintiff was then required to make "oath 
of his damage." Cornwaleys asked a respite. "And the 
Enquest not agreeing upon the Bill give in charge prayed at 
5 el night to be cUscharged." The attorney for Lord Balti- 
more not gainsajdng, the Lieutenant General discharged 
them.'^ 

WTiile Cornwaleys was absent in England, as we shall see 
in the following chapter, Cuthbert Fenwick, his attorney, on 
January 9, 1644, brought the following petition before the 

Court: 

The petition of Tho: Cornwaleys Esq, by his 
attorny Cutbert ffenick 
Sheweth 

that whereas the horle [honorable] Governor to- 
gether with John Lewger & John Langford Esqres 
did on the 12th AprUl 1642. dehver to your petr 



" Ibid., p. 218. 
3S Ibid., p. 244. 
39 Ibid. 



INDIAN DISTURBANCES 105 

[petitioner] a bill of exchange of 200 pounds sterl: 
upon the right horle the Lord Proprietary of this 
Prov: The said bill of exchange was refused by his 
said Lop and protested; and thereby the petr hath 
suffered damage to the value of 100000 pounds tob 
& cask; & therefore prayeth the said damage, of the 
said parties, according to justice.^" 

Giles Brent communicated this petition to the Governor 
and asked him to appoint a day whereon he might give his 
reasons to the Counsel why he should not pay Cornwaleys 
his demands. Calvert promptly informed Brent that he was 
not bound to any such procedure and consequently would not 
appoint any time for the hearing of the case.^' On January 
13, 1644, Fenwick appeared before Giles Brent and com- 
plained that the Governor refused to give satisfaction for the 
damages and also refused to give his reasons on the appointed 
day. Brent then ordered the sheriff, Edward Packer, to 
serve "an attachment" against the goods of the honorable 
Governor. Packer refused. On the next day, Brent issued 
another writ of the same tenor to Thomas Mathewes.^- This 
is the last reference to this affair recorded, an affair in which 
Cornwaleys did not receive justice. Consequently another 
link was added to the chain of misunderstandings between 
Calvert and the Captain. 



"> Ibid., p. 293. 

" Ibid. 

'^ Ibid., pp. 293 and 294. 



CHAPTER XI 

CORNWALEYS AND InGLE 

During Governor Calvert's absence in England, another 
menace to the peace and welfare of the Maryland colony 
arose. As the whole affair was an echo of what was trans- 
piring in the mother-country, a brief survey of events in 
England at this time is necessary. Hostilities between the 
King and Parliament were soon coming to an issue. Charles 
I summoned all his loving subjects north of the Trent, and 
within twenty miles to the south of that river to meet him in 
arms at Nottingham on the twenty-second of August, 1642. 
On that day the royal standard was set up. Parliament's 
answer to this challenge was that all who gave assistance to 
the King were to be regarded as traitors. Civil war was to 
ensue.' 

The influence of this state of things was bound to be felt in 
Maryland. That Lord Baltimore had any political relations 
with the royal party, there is no evidence and little prob- 
ability. The obligations of his charter compelled him to 
have some relations with the King. His colony was, as we 
have seen, dependent on the sovereign only, and entirely 
independent of Parliament. Communications with the mon- 
arch on matters outside of the subjects of the contro- 
versy could hardly have been considered an offense, so long as 
Charles was not held to have forfeited his crown.- It seems 
as though Baltimore, about this time, was entertaining 
thoughts of taking refuge from the storm in Maryland; for 
in March, 1643, he was cited before the Lords and placed 
under bond not to leave the country.^ 

About this time, Richard Ingle, master of a trading vessel 
from London, came to the colony. He had previously been 
in Maryland. The first time his name appears in the colonial 



' Lingard, History of England, Vol. vii, pp. 267 et seq.; Browne, George and 
Cedlius Calvert, p. 127. 

2 Browne, op. cit., pp. 127-8. 
» Ibid. 

106 



CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 107 

records is under date of March 23, 1641, when he petitioned 
the Assembly against Giles Brent "touching a direction to 
the Sheriff from his serving an execution." ^ Captain Ingle 
was a rampant parhamentarian given to treasonable out- 
bursts on his own quarter-deck. Sworn information was 
laid before acting Governor Brent that he had used language 
such as "the King is no King"; that he was "a captain for 
the Parliament against the King": and other expressions of 
the same kind. Ingle was a braggadocio, but a serious issue 
was thrust upon the Maryland authorities by his conduct. 
To allow him to go his way, was to commit the colony to the 
side of the parliamentary party; to arrest him as a traitor 
was to place it on the side of the King. As Browne remarks, 
the somewhat singular proceedings that followed look very 
much like an ingenious device to slip between the horns of 
the dilemma.' 

In January, 1643, a warrant was issued by Brent to William 
Hardige, to arrest Ingle upon a charge of high treason. A 
similar order was sent to Captain Cornwaleys. He was to 
aid Hardige and to use all means possible to apprehend 
Ingle. The whole matter was to be done secretly.*^ Ingle 
was thereupon arrested and given into the custody of the 
sheriff, Edward Packer. The Lieutenant General, Giles 
Brent, ordered the ship of Ingle seized together with his 
goods, until he should clear himself of the accusations against 
him. A guard was put on the ship, under John Hampton, 
who was to allow no one to come on board without a warrant 
from the Lieutenant General. ~ 

Ingle escaped in the following manner. Packer had no 
prison, and consequently had to keep personal guard over 
his prisoner. He supposed, from "certaine words spoken 
by the Secretary" that Brent and the Council had agreed to 
let Ingle go on board his vessel. When Cornwaleys and Neale 



* I — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 120. 
' Brown, op. cit., pp. 128-9. 
' IV — Archives of Maryland, Court, p. 231. 
' Ibid., pp. 24.5-6. 



108 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

came forth from Brent's house bringing Ingle with them to 
the ship, on January 18, 1643, Packer accompanied them. ' 
Arriving on the ship, Cornwaleys said "All is Peace." He 
then persuaded Hampton to bid his guard lay down their 
arms and disperse. Ingle and his crew regained possession 
of their vessel. Under such circumstances Packer could not 
prevent the escape of Ingle since Councillor Neale and 
Captain Cornwaleys had assisted him by their acts and 
presence.^ 

A few days later, the following warrant was issued by 
Brent : 

I doe hereby require (in his Maties name) Richard 
Ingle mariner to yield his body to Robt Ellyson 
Sheriff of this County, before the first day of ffebr. 
next to answere to such crimes of treason as on his 
Maties behalfe shall be objected agst him upon his 
utmost pill [peril] of the Law in that behalfe. And I 
doe further require all psons that can say or disclose 
any matter of treason agst the said Richard Ingle, to 
inform his Lops Attorny of it at some time before 
the said Court to the end it may be then & there 
prosequuted.'" 

Ingle, however, was not rearrested, though he still re- 
mained in the neighborhood of St. Mary's." For some time 
following the Ingle question was agitated. For the sake of 
clearness, an account should be given of the acts concerning 
him as well as the persons connected with the affair, in the 
order of their occurrence. 

After the warrant issued by Brent just referred to, "The 
Lieutent Grail appointed & commanded his Lops Attorney 
Grail to prosequute agst mr Neale, Capt Cornwaleys, Edward 
Packer, & John hampton for their rescuous & escape of mr 
Ingle, according to justice and equity." '- 

The accusations against the persons concerned were 
accordingly brought forth by the Attorney of the Proprietary 
in the following words: 



^ Ibid., p. 258; Ingle, Captain Richard Ingle, p. 10. 

» / V— Archives, pp. 242 and 246. 

'» Ibid., p. 233. 

" Ingle, op. cit., p. 11. 

" IV— Archives, p. 232. 



COENWALEYS AND INGLE 109 

The Charge of John Lewger Esq his Lops Attorny 
Grail agst James Neale Esq one of his Lops Counsell, 
Capt Thomas Cornwaleys Esq, Edward Packer late 
sheriff, and John hampton planter. 

That whereas on the 18th of this mstant month, 
one Richard Ingle (mr of the good ship called the 
Reformation, now riding at anchor in St. Georges 
river) was by the Leiutent Grail committed to the 
custody of the said sheriff, for certaine matters of 
high-Treason informed agst him by one William 
Hardige tailor, and the said ship & goods seised into 
his Lops hands, & a guard putt upon the ship by the 
said Lieut Grail under the comand of the said 
John hampton, wth expresse charge not to pmitt the 
said Rich: Ingle to come aboard, without warrant 
of him the Lieut Grail Nevertheless he the said 
Sheriff on the dav aforesaid without any order or 
consent of the said Leiut Gen: carried the said 
Richard Ingle aboard this said ship, and they the said 
Thomas Cornwaleys & James Neale, did consent, 
accompany, advise, & aid him therein; and further 
did pswade the said John hamton to discharge & 
disarme the said guard, saying All is Peace: where- 
upon and upon other his owne motion, the said John 
hamton did will the said Rich: Ingle & his seamen 
whereby the said Rich: Ingle possessed himselfe 
againe of his said shipp, & hath escaped out of the 
said Sheriffs custody. And this rescuous of the said 
ship, and escape of the said Rich: Ingle in maner 
aforesaid, was done & caused by the said parties, 
after their knowledge that he was accused & arrested 
of Highe Treason, to the great contempt of his Lops 
authority in the Leiut. gen: The ill example of others, 
and contrary to the peace of or Soveraigne Lord the 
king, his crowne & dignity. 

And of this Rescuous and Escape of an offender 
imprisond for highe Treason, the said Attorny im- 
peacheth the said severall pties respectively, and 
prayeth that such pceedings & judgmt agst them 
be done therein as justice requireth." 

On January 21, Brent sent a summons to these men to 
answer to this charge within three days at the latest under 
pain of contempt and any further penalties that the law might 
inflict. 



" Ibid., pp. 232-3. 



110 THOMAS COENWALEYS 

Information touching these matters were forthcoming from 
various persons. The first information contained in the 
suit was that of Hardige, who stated that at various times 
he heard Ingle say that "he was Captaine of Gravesend for 
the Parlamt agst the [King"; that sometime in February, 
1642, at Accomack, Ingle, having been commanded in the 
King's name to come ashore, refused to do so in the name of 
Parliament. Standing on board his ship he drew his cutlass 
threatening to cut of? the head of any who should try to force 
him to do so. Hardige told the Attorney that one Richard 
Pinner could testify that Ingle had said in the presence of 
others that King Charles was no king or words to that effect.'^ 

On January 29, information was communicated to Lewger 
by Daniel Duffill, regarding Cornwaleys' part in the escape 
of Ingle. He stated "that the said Captaine [Cornwaleys] 
coming aboard mr Ingle's ship, said to Jo. hamton All is 
Peace, & willed him that all was quiett & peace & willed the 
said Jo : hamton to goe out to the rest of the gard & will them 
to deliver up their amies to the gonner of the ship." '^ 

The trial of the accused parties began on February 5, 1643. 
A jury was sworn in and the accusations against Ingle 
brought forth. The jurors could not agree on the various 
accusations of Hardige and toward evening prayed to be 
discharged. Their request was granted.^* 

On February 8th, Lewger brought forth his charge against 
Neale and Cornwaleys in practically the same form as given 
above. The Captain replied to the charge against him 
"that he did well understand the matters charged agst the 
said Rich: Ingle to be of no importance but suggested of 
meere mahce of the accuser william hardige, as hath ap- 
peared since in that grand Enquest found not so much 
probability in the accusations as that it was fitt to putt him 
to his triall." Cornwaleys, according to his defence "sup- 
posed and understood" that Ingle went on board the ship 
with the consent of the Lieutenant General and his Counsel 



» Ibid., pp. 233-4. 
'=■ Ibid., p. 234. 
" Ibid., p. 245. 



CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 111 

and of the officer in whose custody he was. He then denied 
that he was guilty of allowing the escape of Ingle in the way 
charged to him. He therefore prayed to be dismissed.'^ 

From this evidence, it is clear that the Captain did not 
consider Ingle culpable with regard to the treasonable 
utterance alleged against him. His argument was substan- 
tiated by the fact to which he refers as the grand Inquest, 
that the jury could not agree for a whole day on these very 
charges against Ingle, and consequently the members, on 
their own request, were dismissed. With regard to Corn- 
waleys' impression that Ingle went on board his ship with the 
permission of the Lieutenant General and Counsel and of the 
Sheriff, it is quite possible that he took it for granted that 
Neale and Packer were acting under approval of the 
authorities. On the other hand. Packer later excused him- 
self on the plea that Cornwaleys and Neale were sufficient 
guarantee to him of Ingle's license to board his ship. Russell 
incHnes to the view that the Captain was hoodwinked by 
Ingle, who made use of Cornwaleys' kind offices to effect his 
release and escape.'* 

On the following day we find the following entry upon the 
records of the Provincial Court: 

1643 

Febr: 9. upon instance of Capt The. Cornwaleys, 
to be dismissed the Cort without further delay the 
L. G. demanded of his Lops attorny, his opinion in 
point of law, whether accessary to rescue of one im- 
prisond for suspition of highe treason, were to be 
proceeded agst in this Prov: according to the rule 
expressed in or Lawes, in bar implied to the Law of 
England; or according to the law of Engl, and the 
Attorny delivered his opinion that the Court is 
bound to proceed according to the Lawes of this 
Province, both by his Lops Commission, & by their 
oath; (so far as the Attorny doth judge or under- 
stand :) althoughe they have a bar implied to the law 
of England.'^ 



" IHd., p. 248. 

'* Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 177. 

'^ IV— Archives, p. 249. 



112 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

After considering the case as presented before the Court, 
the Lieutenant General pronounced sentence upon Captain 
Cornwaleys. He was found " to be accessary to the rescuous 
& escape charged; & adjudged ... to lose to the Lord 
Proprietary one thousand pounds of tobacco."-" Corn- 
waleys then requested that the levying of the fine be post- 
poned. This was granted and his Lordship's Receiver was 
commissioned to "respite the levying of the fine till further 
order."" 

On February 29th, the Sheriff of St. Mary's was ordered to 

collect the fine imposed. The order reads: 

Levie one thousand pounds of tobacco on any the 
goods or debts of Capt The. Cornwaleys for so much 
adjudged by way of fine unto the Lord Proprietr agst 
him at the Court held on the 9th febr last, & deliver 
it so leavied into the hands of the Attorny of mr 
John wyatt Comder of Kent in discompt of so much 
due to the said Comder from the Lo: Proprietr and 
for so doing this shalbe yor warrt And this writt 
exequuted returne it into the Court at St maries. 

Giles Brent.-- 

The fine of the Captain is reported "paid" in the account 
of Lewger for the year 1643.^' 

We will now ascertain what happened to the other actors in 
the Ingle episode. Neale, in answering to the accusations 
against him, affirmed that he never took Richard Ligle into 
his charge, nor did he aid him in his escape. The Court 
thereupon reinstated him in his office as Councillor.-^ 
Packer, the sheriff, alleged that when he saw Cornwaleys and 
Neale bringing Ingle with them from the house of Brent, he 
concluded that their action was done with official approval. 
Furthermore, he alleged that Ingle escaped from his custody 
against his will. He too was exonerated." Hampton 
escaped prosecution, presumably, for there is no further 
record of any action taken against him.'-'^ Thus Cornwaleys 

2" Ibid. 

" Ibid. 

"Ibid., p. 255. 

^Ihid., p. 275. 

^' Ibid., p. 258. 

2' Ibid. 

2' Ingle, op. cit., p. 19. 



CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 113 

was made to bear the brunt of the prosecution. It is 
singularly strange that the Captain was obliged to pay a 
heavy fine while the others were allowed to go free. The 
feeling in the colony was so strong against him that he was 
compelled to embark with Ingle for England.-' 

Governor Calvert returned to Maryland in September, 
1644. In February of the same year Ingle again appeared 
with an armed ship, the Reformation, having goods entrusted 
to him by Cornwaleys, valued at two hundred pounds. He 
also carried a commission from Parliament for carrying food, 
clothing and ammunition to the colonists in sympathy with 
the Parliamentary party.-*' St. Mary's was then taken. 
Governor Calvert was forced to flee to Virginia. For two 
years, Ingle and his band, with such lawless persons as they 
could get to join them, had possession of the southern part 
of the Province.-' According to statements made in the 
Assembly of 1649, during this invasion, those who remained 
loyal to Lord Baltimore, "were spoiled of their whole Estate 
and sent away as banished persons out of the Province ; those 
few that remained were plundered and deprived in a manner 
of all Livelyhood and subsistence only Breathing under that 
intolerable Yoke which they were forced to bear under those 
Rebells." ^^ The people were tendered an oath of sub- 
mission, which all the Catholics refused to take.^^ In con- 
sequence of this refusal, they were severely treated, some 
being banished and others voluntarily leaving the colony. 
The two Jesuits, Fathers White and Copley, were sent in 
chains to England.'^ 



" lUd. 

"'Ibid., p. 20. 

"' Browne, op. cit., p. 130. 

»/— ^rcWves, p. 238. 

" Streeter, Papers relating io the Early History of Maryland, p. 267. 

2^ Winsor, History of America, Vol. in, p. 532. Fathers White and Copley, 
upon their arrival in England, were indicted under the penal laws, for having 
been ordained priests abroad and coming into England and remaining there 
as such, contrary to the statute, a crime punishable with death. When 
brought to trial, they pleaded that they had been brought violently into 
England, and had not come of their own will, but against it. The judges 
directed an acquittal. They were not, it would seem, liberated at once, but 
were detained in prison and finally sent out of England under an order of 
perpetual banishment. Father White never returned to his beloved Mary- 
land; Father Copley returned in 1648. (Cf. Shea, History of the Catholic 
Church in the United States, Vol. i, pp. 63 et seq, and 69.) 



114 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Towards the close of 1646, Governor Calvert, who had 
been watching the progress of events from Virginia, deemed 
that the time was ripe for a counter revolution. He appeared 
at St. Mary's at the head of a small force levied in Virginia, 
and regained possession of his government without resistance. 
Ingle left Maryland, and the people returned to their alle- 
giance with marked alacrity. The most lasting evil caused by 
Ingle's rebellion was the destruction of the greater part of 
the then existing records. Due to this fact, much of this 
whole episode remains involved in obscurity.^^ 

Ingle's baseness is best shown in his treatment of Captain 
Cornwaleys who had befriended him. The record of this 
perfidy is preserved for the historian in the Archives of 
Maryland, which contain the account as given in the House 
of Lords Journal. The account also reveals the fact that 
religion entered into the uprising of Ingle in Maryland and 
that it was not merely a political move in favor of Parlia- 
ment against the King. It serves also to show that Corn- 
waleys' allowing Ingle to escape from the hands of the law was 
caused by the Captain having an inadequate comprehension 
of Ingle's machinations as he testified before the Provincial 
Court. 

On February 24, 1645, Richard Ingle presented a petition 
"To the Right Honorable the Lords nowe in Parlyament 
assembled." In it he alleges that when he arrived in Mary- 
land he found that the Governor there had received a com- 
mission to seize all the ships and goods of those friendly to 
Parliament, to force an oath upon them and to secure their 
extirpation. The petitioner avers that he deemed himself 
bound in fidelity to Parliament to risk all to come to the aid 
of the "well affected Protestants, against the said Tyran- 
nicall Governor and the Papists ... to anable him to take 
divers places from them and to make him a supporte to the 
said well affected." The petition contains the following 
relative to Cornwaleys: 

But since his Ingle's Retorne into England the said 
Papists and Malignants conspiring togeather have 



'' Winsor, op. cit., pp. 532-3. 



CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 115 

brought fictitious Actions against him att the Comon 
Lawe in the name of Thomas CornwaUis and others 
for pretended Trespasses .^^ 

Ingle concludes by affirming that "it would be of dangerous 
example to pmitt Papists and Malignants, to bring Action of 
Trespasse, or otherwise against the well affected for fighting 
and standing for the Parlyament."'^ The whole burden of 
the petition is to request the Lords to hold a hearing of the 
case or to refer it to a Committee to report on the true state 
of things and to order that the suits against the petitioner be 
stayed and no fui'ther proceeded in.^*^ 

On March 2, 1645, we find the following entry relative to 
the case of Cornwaleys versus Ingle: 

Thomas CornwaUis pit [plaintiff] 

agst 
Richard Ingle defte [defendant] 

CornwalHs planted himselfe divers yeares since in the 
Pvince of Maryland in America, And about two 
yeares since Ingle came thither as Mr of a London 
Shipp to trade in those parts wth the English who 
had planted there and was there accused of high 
Treason for wordes wch he had spoken agst the King 
upon some Comunicacon of the differences here 
between the King and Parliament upon wch ac- 
cusacon Ingle was arrested and his Shipp and goods 
seised by the then Governor but Cornwallis to declare 
his affeccon to the Parliament found meanes within 
8 howers space to free Ingle and to restore him to his 
Shipp and all his goods againe, for wch fact the 
greatest fine that by ye Lawes of that Country there 
imposed uppon Cornwallis and hee compelled to pay 
the same And then for the safety of his person 
enforct to trust his whole estate there wth a Servant 
and flie hither wth Ingle in the same Shipp And when 
Cornwallis came into England Ingle gave Testimony 
before a Comittee of his good affeccion to ye Parlai- 
ment and of his great sufferings for that Cause. 

Afterwards Ingle goeing into those pts againe 
Cornwallis entrusted him here in London by way of 
Trade wth diverse Comodities to the value of about 
200 pounds but Ingle kept the Commodities, and 
takeing advantage of Cornwallis his absence landed 



2* III — Archivesof Maryland, Cou7ml,p- 165; Lords' Journal, vni, pp. 183, 186. 
M Ibid., p. HJ6. 
3« Ibid. 



116 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

some men nere his howse and rifled him to the value 
of 2500 pounds att the least And then returning 
into England complained before the Comittee of 
Examinacons agst Cornwallis as an enimy to the 
State vainely hopeing by that meanes to shelter 
himselfe from the Law, but upon full debate of 
the businesse before that Comittee Cornwallis was 
referred to his remedy att Law, and hath brought an 
accon att La we agst Ingle for the Comodities delivered 
here, and pcured a Comission out of the Chancery 
to examyne witnesses of the value of the goods taken 
in Maryland. 

To stay these pceedings Ingle caused Cornwallis 
to be laid in prison uppon 2 faigned aceons of 15000 
pounds but Cornwallis by the helpe of his friendes 
gott out of prison And that piect [project] faileing 
Ingle prferrd a peticon agst Cornwallis before the 
Lordes in Parliamt And upon fayned allegacons 
hath pcured an Order to stopp Cornwallis his 
pceedings att the Lawe till the matter conteuned in 
the peticon be determined And nowe Ingle absents 
himselfe and psecutes noe further upon his peticon. 
And now Cornwallis hath peticoned the Lords that in 
regard hee hath attended severall dayes wth Councell 
and is noe longer able to beare that charge, that the 
businesse may be speedily heard and determined by 
their Lopps or that hee may be left att Liberty to try 
his accon att Lawe for the goods delivered to Ingle 
here.'' 

This account speaks for itself. It contains the recitation 
of the wrongs Ingle perpetrated against the Captain. It was 
thus that he was repaid for his kindness. And Ingle to clear 
himself poses as a champion of Parliament, as a liberator of 
the'colonists from a tyrannical Governor, as a warrior for the 
Protestant cause against the oppressions of the ' ' Papists and 
Malignants." All this was done by Ingle to set at naught 
the charges which Thomas Cornwaleys brought against him. 
The^state to which the Captain was reduced by the ingrate 
was^such that he was " spoyld of all his goods and ruyn'd by 
the said Ingle." '* 

At the same time that these affairs were transpiring, a 
petition was also addressed to the Lords in Parliament by 

3' Ibid., pp. 166-7. 
" Ibid., p. 170. 



CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 117 

one Mary Ford, on behalf of the Protestant inhabitants of 
Maryland and Virginia. In it Cornwaleys is accused of 
being the chief actor in a design for the settling of a "Popish 
faction in Maryland." Several trumped up charges are 
brought against him that are so absurd that it is not neces- 
sary to recount them. In fact the Captain is even accused 
of the seizure of Ingle's ship when he was really the man 
judged responsible by the Maryland authorities for allowing 
that individual to escape.'" 

How this matter between Ingle and Cornwaleys was settled 
does not appear.^" On September 8, 1647, however, Richard 
Ingle transferred to Cornwaleys "for divers good and valu- 
able causes" the debts, bills, etc., belonging to him, and made 
him his attorney to collect the same.^' 

Much might be said in extenuation of Cornwaleys' act in 
allowing the escape of Ingle from the hands of the Maryland 
authorities. According to his own testimony he certainly 
must be acquitted of much of the blame for this act. In the 



^^Ibid., pp. 168-9 and 171. 

*" Further references to the Cornwaleys-Ingle case are the following: 

Cause of Ingle and Ford vs. Cornwaleys, set for Mar. 14, 1645-6. L.J., 

Vol. VIII, p. 206. 
Mar. 31, 1646. Petition of Cornwaleys to Lords, mss. of the House of 

Lords; calendared in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Sixth Report, 

appendix, p. 109; /// — Archives, pp. 170-1. 
Mar. 31, 1646. Cause postponed two weeks. L. J., viii, 247. 
Apr. 14, 1646. Hearing again postponed. Cornwaleys being ready, 

damages will be given him if it shall be thought fit at the trial. 
Apr. 25. Petition of Mary Ford vs. Cornwaleys. mss. of House of Lords ; 

calendared Hist. Mss. Comm., 6lh Rept., app. p. 113; /// — Archives, p. 

171. 
Apr. 25. Cause to be heard Tuesday next. L. J., viii, 283. 
Apr. 28. Again postponed to May 15. L. J., viii, 288. 
May 15. Postponed "Wednesday come sevennight." Ibid., p. 315. 
May 22. Petition of Cornwaleys to Lords. Hearing having been set for 

May 27, which being fast day (monthly fast appointed to be kept on 

last Wednesday of every month; L. J. v., 320), asks that some other 

day be appointed. Complains of delays and the expense to him. mss. 

of House of Lords; calendared as above, p. 117. 
May 22. Trial to be had Wednesday next. L. J., viii, 324. 

Further postponements to June 11, July 2, 9, Oct. 16. L.J., viii, 336, 

369, 406, 424. 
All papers relating to the Ingle-Cornwaleys controversy before the House 

of Lords will be pubhshed in full in the first volume of Dr. Leo F. 

Stock's forthcoming work, Parliamentary Proceedings and Debates 

relating to America. 
" Ingle, op. cit., p. 33. 



118 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

first place he did not believe that the accusations were so well 
founded with regard to the treasonable utterances of Ingle. 
Again, he acted under the impression that Ingle was allowed 
to depart by Brent and his Counsel. ^Vhatever be the 
merits of this defense of Cornwaleys, this much is certain, 
that he got more than his deserts from the authorities in the 
colony. Furthermore, he was subjected to being made the 
proxy of all Ingel's vengeance against the Maryland 
authorities by being held responsible by that man for all 
the alleged crimes which Ingle brought against them. 
Though he may have been vindicated, which is by no means 
certain, nevertheless, he was forced to undergo imprisonment 
and the ordeal of a lawsuit to clear himself. 



CHAPTER XII 

Final Services to the Colony 

The Ingle disturbance having ended, the colony settled 
down to peaceful pursuits. The Governor, Leonard Cal- 
vert, was not to enjoy the fruit of his successful effort to 
restore tranquility. He died on June 9, 1647, at the little 
capital of St. Mary's which he had founded, and where he had 
exercised with wisdom and moderation, the highest executive 
and judicial offices. On his death-bed, he appointed Thomas 
Greene, a Catholic and a royalist, his successor. The new 
executive proclaimed a general pardon to those in the 
Province who had a share in the late rebellion and also to 
all those who had fled from the colony, except Richard 
Ingle. ^ 

The monarchical cause was now prostrate in England. 
With Parhament supreme, Cecihus Calvert saw a great 
danger threatening his colonial domains. He deemed it 
prudent to make it impossible for his enemies to allege that 
Maryland was a CathoUc colony. At the same time he felt 
it his duty to protect those of his own faith. He accordingly 
adopted a policy that was one of conciliation to the Puritans 
as well as of protection to the Catholics. In August, 1648, 
he removed Governor Greene, and appointed William Stone 
to the post. The new official was a Virginian, a zealous 
Protestant and a Parliamentarian. At the same time the 
Proprietor issued a new commission for the Council of the 
Province, appointing five men to form that body, three of 
whom were Protestants. A Protestant Secretary was also 
nominated.- 

The Governor and Counsellors were required to swear that 
they would not molest any person in the Province professing, 
to believe in Jesus Christ, and in particular no Roman 
Catholic' In the year 1649, the Assembly of Maryland 



' Winsor, History of America, Vol. in, p. 533. 

2 Ihid. 

' Ibid., pp. 533-4. 

119 



120 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

passed the Act concerning Religion, or "Act of Toleration" 
as it is often called, which enforced by statute what had been 
the policy of the Proprietary from the beginning. Penalties 
are prescribed for "whatsoever person or persons within this 
Province . . . shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is 
curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the sonne 
of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the ffather sonne and 
holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said Three persons 
of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead, or shall use or 
utter any reproachful Speeches, words, or language concern- 
ing the Holy Trinity; . . . whatsoever person or persons 
shall . . . utter any reproachfuU words or Speeches con- 
cerning the blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of our Saviour 
or the holy Apostles or Evangehsts." It also punishes all 
who shall call others by reviling names on account of religious 
differences. Profanation of the Sabbath became a penal 
offence. Furthermore no person was to be molested who 
professed a belief in Jesus Christ. The free exercise of 
religion was provided for. Any infringements on these 
provisions of the statutes were to be punished in proportion 
to the offence as provided by law.^ 

Just when Captain Cornwaleys returned to Maryland 
after his long absence cannot be definitely stated. About the 
latter part of the year 1652, he appeared in Court to seek 
redress for injury done his servants and property during the 
Ingle uprising. Accordingly he addressed a complaint to the 
Governor and Council of the Province touching tliis matter. 
We will give the account in full as recorded in the records of 
the Court as it throws much light on the possessions of the 
Captain. 

The Humble Complaint of Thomas Cornwallis 
Esq against Thomas Sturman & John Sturman 
Coopers & William Hardwich Taylor. 
Sheweth. 

That Whereas it is well knowne that the Complt 
was one of the Chiefe and first Adventurers for the 



* / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, pp. 244-7. 



FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 121 

planting of this Province, and therein besides the 
danger and hazard of his Life and health, Exhausted 
a Great part of his Estate not only in the first Ex- 
pedition, but alsoe in yearly Supplyes of Servants 
and Goods for the Support of himself and this then 
Infant Collony by which and Gods Blessing upon his 
Endeavours, he had acquired a Settled & Com- 
fortable Subsistance haveing a Competent Dwelling 
house, furnished with plate Linnen hangings beding, 
brass, pewter and all manner of Houshold Stuff 
worth at the least a thousand pounds ; about twenty 
Servants, at least a hundred Neat Cattell a Great 
Stock of Swine and Goats Some Sheep and horses, a 
new pinnace about twenty Tunn well rigged and 
fitted besides a New ShaUop and other Small boates, 
with divers debts for Goods Sold to the quantity of 
neare A Hundred thousand weight of Tobacco, aO of 
which at his going for England in or about Aprill 
1644 he left and deposited in the Care and Custody of 
his Attorney Cuthbert ffenwick Gent, who in or 
about ffebruary following comeing from the Ship of 
Richard Ingle Marriner was as Soon as he Came 
ashore, Treacherously and Illegally Surprized by 
the Said John Sturman and others, and Carryed 
prisoner aboard the said Ingles Ship, and there 
detained and Compelled to deliver the Complts 
house, and the rest of the premissess into the pos- 
session of Divers ill disposed persons whereof the 
Said Tho: and John Sturman and Wm Hardwich 
were three of the Chiefe, who being Soe unlawfully 
possest of the Said house, and the premisses plundered 
and Carryed away all things in It, pulled downe and 
burnt the pales about it, killed and destroyed all the 
Swine and Goates, and killed or mismarked almost 
all the Cattle, tooke or dispersed all the Servants, 
Carryed away a Great quantity of Sawn Boards from 
the ])itts, and ript up Some floors of the house, And 
having by these Violent and unlawfull Courses, forst 
awa}^ my Said Attorney, the said Thomas and John 
Sturman possest themselves of the Complts house 
as their owne dwelt in it Soe long as they please and 
at their departing tooke the locks from the doors, 
and the Glass from the windowes, and in fine ruined 
his whole Estate to the damage of the Complt at 
least two or three thousand pounds, for which he 
humbly Craves the Justice of this Court against the 
said Tho: and John Sturman and Willm Hardwich 
towards the repaires of his Great Damage and loss 
wherein they have been no Small Shares.^ 



s X — Archives of Maryland, Court, pp. 253-4. 



122 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Both parties in this law suit agreed to postpone the hearing 
of this case until the next General Assembly.'' What the 
further developments of the case were cannot be well deter- 
mined as the records do not contain much reference to the 
same. However, an entry on the Court records dated March 
6, 1653, tells us that two arbitrators, Wilham Stone and 
Thomas Hatton, decided that several payments in tobacco 
were to be made by John Sturman on his own behalf and 
that of his father to the Captain. This was done to satisfy 
for all differences between them and Cornwaleys ' ' heretofore 
depending in Court or referred to Assembly." ' 

About this time Cornwaleys presented a petition to the 
authorities to secure the land due to him for transportation 
of servants at various times. The document states: "It is 
well known, he Cornwaleys hath at his great cost and charges, 
from the first planting of this Province for the space of 
twenty-eight years, been one of the greatest propagators and 
increasers thereof, by the yearly transportation of servants, 
whereof divers have been of very good rank and quality, 
towards whom and the rest he hath always been so careful to 
discharge a good conscience, in the true performance of his 
promise and obligations, that he was never taxed with any 
breach thereof, though it is also well known and he doth 
truly aver it, that the charge of so great a family, as he hath 
always maintained was never defraj^ed by their labor" * 

The list of the Captain's servants will not prove uninterest- 
ing to the reader. The same was compiled from the accounts 
in Richardson's Side-lights on Maryland History and Neill's 
Founders of Maryland. Both these authors make their 
citations from the Annapolis Records.** 

Regarding the first servants of the Captain to arrive in the 
colony, we find the following entry on the records, made in 
February, 1652: "A list of persons brought into the Province 



« Ibid., p. 234. 
' Ibid., p. 348. 

* Neill, Founders of Maryland, pp. 80-1. 

'Richardson, Side-Lighls on Maryland History, pp. 8-15; Neill, op. cit., 
pp. 77-9. 



FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 123 

of Maryland at the cost and charges of me, Thomas Corn- 
walleys, Esq., since the first seating in Anno 1634 [new 
style], to this year, 1652, for which I demand land accord- 
ing to the conditions of Plantations from time to time ; Anno 
1634, transported in the Ark myself and 12 servants. By 
my partner, Mr. John Sanders, who dying gave me that 
year, 5 servants. Brought the same year from Virginia, four 
servants, viz: Cuthbert Fenwick, Christopher Martin, John 
Norton, Senior, John Norton, Junior, so in all that year, 2 
and 20 persons." ^^ 

Who the twelve men were does not appear. The five 
servants of Sanders referred to are: Benjamin Hodges, John 
Elkin, Richard Cole, Richard Nevill, John Marlburgh." 

The following were brought over to the colony in various 
years as indicated: 

1633. (0. S.) John HoUowes, John Holdern, Roger 
Walter, Roger Morgan, Josias . . ., Thomas Beckworth, 
Matthew Burro wes, Samuel . . ., Cuthbert Fenwick, Rich- 
ard Loe, William Fitter, John Robinson, WilHam Browne, 
Stephen Gore, Stephen Jammison and Stephen Sammon.^^ 

As Richardson was only concerned with the first settlers, we 
complete our Ust from Neill's account. It is to be noted that 
this author uses the new-style date. 

1635. Zachary Mottershead, John Gage, Walter Water- 
Ung, Francis Van Eyden, WiUiam Penshoot, Richard Cole, 
John Medley, Richard Brown and Richard Brock. 

1636. John Cook, Thomas York, Daniel Clocker, Richard 
Hill and Restitutia Tue. 

1637. Charles Maynard, Stephen Gray, Francis Shirley, 
Ann Wiggin and Ahce Moreman. 

1639. Nicholas Gwyther, Edmund Jaques, Richard 
Farmer, Edmund Deering, George . . ., William Freak, 
Morris Freeman, Jeremiah Coote and Martha Jackson. 

'"Richardson, op. cil., pp. 14-5; O'Daniel, The Right Rev. Edward Dominic 
Fenwick, O. P., inclines to the opinion that Cuthbert Fenwick came to Mary- 
land on the Ark. He substantiates his argiiment by two records to this effect 
against one record that he was brought from Virginia. For the three records, 
see Richardson, op. cil., pp. 12, 14, 15. 

"Richardson, op. cil., pp. li-2. 

^' Ibid., pp. i2 and 14. Stephen Sammon and Stephen Jammison are 
probably the same person. The two entries list ten names which are identical 
except the last. In one entry it gives Sammon and in the other Jammison. 



124 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

1640. William Durford, Henry Brooke, George . . ., 
Edward Matthews and Hannah Ford. 

1641. Francis Anthill, Richard Harvey, Charles Rawlin- 
son, Richard Harris, Thomas Harrison, Edward Ward, 
Robert King, Mary Phillips, John Wheatley and his wife. 

1642. Thomas Rockwood, John Rockwood and Elizabeth 
Batte. 

1646. Magdalene Wittle. 

1651. Robert Curtis, WilUam Sinckleare, Thomas Frisell, 
William Wells, John Maylande, John Eston and Sarah 
Lindle. 

Besides the lists of the servants of Captain Cornwaleys, 
we are also able, from various sources, to give a list of the 
different tracts of land acquired by him during the years of 
his sojourn in Maryland. His estates will appear in the 
order of their acquisition. 

Cornicaleys Cross, a tract of two thousand acres surveyed 
on September 19, 1639, and located near St. Mary's. Corn- 
waleys usually resided at the Cross.'^^ 

St. Elizabeth's, a tract of the same extent as the Cross, 
surveyed at the same time. 

West St. Mary's Mannour, a tract of two thousand acres, 
surveyed September 20, 1640. 

Resurrection Mannour, a tract of four thousand acres, 
surveyed March 24, 1650. 

Nuthall, a tract of two hundred acres, surveyed July 28, 
1654. 

Cornwaleys' Choice, a tract of one thousand acres, surveyed 
August 16, 1658. 

Verina, a tract of one thousand acres, surveyed August 
21, 1658, for Captain Cornwaleys. Possessed by Daniel 
Pierce, WiUiam Freeman, Samuel Bostic, James Wilson, 
William Smith and John Wilson." 

Cornwaleys also possessed a tract known as Cornwaleys' 
Neck, lo cated in St. Mary's County. What the extent of 

" Davis, The Day-Star of American Freedom, p. 209. 

"Richardson, op. cil., pp. 288, 290, 291, 292, 294; also Streeter, Papers 
relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 203; Kilty, The Land-Holders 
Assistant, p. 70- 



FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 125 

this tract was, we have been unable to find. On March 7, 
1642, the colonial surveyor was ordered to lay out four 
thousand acres " in any part of Patowmack river, upward of 
Port Tobacco Creek." This may have been the tract known 
as Cornwaleys' Neck.^'' 

Having digressed at some length to examine the possessions 
of Captain Cornwaleys, we now continue our narrative. 

During Governor Stone's incumbency, several Indian 
tribes again became troublesome. The incursions were of 
such a nature as to cause the inhabitants of the colony to 
petition the Governor to take measures for the adequate 
protection of their hves and property. Stone at once re- 
sponded to their request. Not content with consulting his 
Counsel, he decided to call upon several men whose sound 
judgment and experience in Indian warfare particularly 
qualified them to give advice in such an emergency. Among 
these, after a long disappearance from the stage, Thomas 
Cornwaleys again comes forward in his old character of 
trusted adviser, and one of the firm bulwarks of the colony.'^ 

At a Court session held at St. Mary's, on November 25, 
1652, the Governor and Council, together with Cornwaleys 
and others whose advice and assistance was desired, deliber- 
ated on an expedition against the Indians. As a result of 
this meeting, it was decided that sufficient forces be levied for 
a march against the eastern shore Indians. For this pur- 
pose, every seventh man throughout the Province was to be 
called into the service, councillors and other public officers 
being excepted. The six persons not drafted, were to supply 
the seventh with provisions, arms, and ammunition. All 
were to rendezvous at Kent Island by December 30th, where 
they were to be commanded by Captain WilUam Fuller. 
This gentleman was the principal military man among the 
Parliamentarians of the Province. He came over from 
Virginia with the Puritan settlers in 1649.'^ 



" Streeter, op. oil., pp. 166 and 190. 

's/hid., p. 194. 

" /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 282; also Streeter, op. cil., pp. 194-5. 



126 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Just why the veteran Cornwaleys was not chosen for the 
leadership of this movement is not known. Streeter thinks 
that the reason was due to previous hard service, ill health, 
or wounds received in previous expeditions. He also con- 
siders it likely that the appointment of Fuller was more 
opportvme since he resided nearer the scene of the proposed 
operations. He was popular in that quarter where a con- 
siderable part of the force was to be drawn, and consequently 
was better fitted than an inhabitant of another part of the 
colony.'* 

This Indian expedition was destined to fall through as so 
many previous ones. Divers obstacles arose, rendering it 
impossible to collect a sufficient force for the project. 
Fuller was very willing to undertake the commission 
entrusted to him. The principal objection on the part of 
the settlers was the season of the year. During the winter 
it was hard to obtain provisions and they thought that they 
would suffer more from climatic hardships than from the 
assaults of the savages. Besides, some of the Indians had 
become aware of the design and were ready to meet the 
colonists in an engagement. Stone decided to abandon the 
scheme for the time being and, on December 18, 1652, 
directed those who had assembled to return to their homes. ^^ 

According to Neill, Cornwaleys visited England in 1654. 
He stated that while there, probably in 1657, he married a 
young maiden, Penelope, daughter of John Wiseman of 
Middle Temple, and Tyrrels, in County Essex. She was 
then twenty-one years of age. We are of the opinion that 
Neill is mistaken with regard to the marriage of Cornwaleys 
as shown in the first chapter of this biography. 

Matters about this time looked ominous for the Maryland 
province. Ingle was besieging ParUament with petitions, 
complaints and charges. Claiborne again was active and 
even boasted that the Maryland Charter would be annulled 
and he would have Kent Island, Indian disturbances were 

'* Streeter, op. cit., p. 195. 
»/Wd., pp. 195-6. 



FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 127 

threatening, while the enemies of Maryland in Virginia were 
full of hope. These troubles were due to the disturbed con- 
dition of affairs in the mother country. The charge that 
Maryland was groaning under Popish tyranny was again 
brought forward. To answer this last charge, the Maryland 
Governor as well as many prominent Protestants in the 
Legislature and other citizens, all Protestant, drew up a 
declaration that they were in no wise molested on account of 
their religion, in which they were protected by both the law 
of the land as well as by the strict injunctions of the Pro- 
prietary.^" 

When Cromwell took upon himself the title of Lord Protec- 
tor of the Commonwealth, Governor Stone, early in May, 
1654, proclaimed him with the firing of cannon, a proclamation 
of pardons and other manifestations of joy. Dissatisfaction, 
however, at some of the Proprietary's laws were felt in some 
quarters. The people of the Patuxent and Severn Rivers, 
and of Kent, strongly objected to the terms of an oath of 
fidehty to Lord Baltimore, required of those who held lands. 
Some, acting under orders from the Proprietor, insisted that 
they take the oath or forfeit their lands. Furthermore, the 
Governor refused to issue writs in any other name than that 
of Lord Baltimore. Petitions were sent to Bennett and 
Claiborne, two leaders in a movement to have Lord Baltimore 
removed from jurisdiction of his Province, and to have the 
old Charter of Virginia renewed. Finding Stone determined 
in his course, these two men came into Maryland in July 
1654, and compelled him to resign. They then placed the 
Government in the hands of ten commissioners, at the head 
of whom was Captain Fuller. After this they returned to 
Virginia. Bennett went to England to assist in furthering 
the Virginia cause before the Lord Protector.^' 

Thus matters stood until March, 1655, when a cutting 
reprimand from the Proprietary aroused Stone. He resumed 
his title and official functions, as Governor, and gathered an 
armed force to proceed against the malcontents. A fight 



2° Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, pp. 140-1. 
" Streeter, op. cil., pp. 198-9. 



128 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

ensued in which Stone was utterly defeated, many of his men 
slain, and several afterwards executed by the victors. 

The Province after this remained for some time under 
the control of Fuller and his party, though occasionally dis- 
turbed by Captain Josias Fendall, in behalf of the Pro- 
prietary. Fendall on July 10, 1656, was appointed Governor 
with Philip Calvert, brother of Cecihus Calvert, who was 
sent over, as Secretary. Thus the Province was under a 
divided rule, some recognizing Fuller and others, Fendall.-'- 

In June, 1657, Fendall sailed for England, leaving the 
control of affairs at St. Mary's in the hands of Dr. Luke 
Barber. Wliilst there. Lord Baltimore and the agents of 
Virginia in England discussed a compromise. As a result of 
this meeting, Calvert promised the party of opposition in the 
colony that, in case they recognized his officers and laid 
aside all claims to authority, and promised to surrender the 
records and the great seal, and forget past controversies, he 
would modify the oath of fidelity for those wishing to take 
up lands and would never consent to a repeal of the Act of 
Toleration.^^ 

Upon Fendall's return, he called a meeting of the Counsel 
of the Province at St. Leonard's, on March 18, 1657, at which 
Captain Cornwaleys, who had returned to Maryland in the 
meantime, was present as Assistant to Governor Fendall 
and Secretary Calvert. At this meeting Fendall made known 
the terms of the agreement with the Proprietary that resulted 
from the meeting in England.-^ Among the instructions 
brought back by Fendall was one in which he was ordered in 
the performance of his duties as Governor, always to proceed 
with the advice of his Secretary, Philip Calvert. In case 
the Secretary was absent from Maryland; or in case he fell 
ill, or was otherwise prevented from acting, then the Governor 
should act with the advice and approbation of Captain 
Thomas Cornwaleys. Furthermore, in case of attestations 
of grants, the Captain and two others of the Council should 

22 Ibid., pp. 199-200. 

»/W(i., pp. 200-1. 

» III— Archives, p. 334. 



FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 129 

sign them. The effect of this order was to make Cornwaleys, 
in the absence of Calvert, Secretary of the Province.-" As a 
result of the meeting of March 18th, peace was again 
restored. Fuller recognized the authority of Fendall as 
Baltimore's only true and authorized representative, on the 
last day of the year 1657. Thus Captain Cornwaleys, after 
many years of varied experience in the toils, hardships and 
vicissitudes of colonial life, had the satisfaction of crowning 
his active and useful labors, by a participation in the nego- 
tiations that brought about this happy result, and of receiving 
from Lord Baltimore a recognition of his claims to his 
gratitude and respect, in his appointment, in case of neces- 
sity, to discharge the offices of the second official in the 
Province.-* 

Few memoranda remain on the records of the Province 
from now on regarding Captain Cornwaleys. In fact, with 
the last mentioned episode, ends the story of his personal 
connection with the colony. Streeter says of him: "After 
twenty-five years of persevering labor, which had been 
rewarded by the accumulation of a handsome estate, of 
honesty and promptitude in his private deaUngs, and firm- 
ness and courage in his public services, which had won for 
him the favor and respect of the people, he prepared, with 
the general regret of the colonists to return to England." 
There, in the land of his birth, he was to take up his residence 
and to spend his decUning years.-'' Leaving his ample 
estate under the control of Richard Hotchkeys, empowered 
to act as his sole attorney for its management, the Captain, 
with his wife, sailed for England, on June 2, 1659.-* 

A few entries on the colonial records tell us that the man- 
agement of his estates was not unattended by inconveniences. 
In fact, in one case at least, he had sufficient reason to com- 
plain of the ingratitude of one whom he had befriended. At 
a meeting of the Council held at Resurrection Manor, on 



25 Ibid., p. 338. 

2« Streeter, op. cil., pp. 202-3. 

" Ibid., p. 203. 

=« III— Archives, p. 381. 



130 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

December 12, 1659, John Abington appeared as a petitioner 
on behalf of the Captain. This man became Cornwaleys' 
attorney on the death of Hotchkeys by designation of Corn- 
waleys. He had been appointed as agent to receive pay- 
ments of tobacco for him. Wlien his debtors refused to pay 
him, he asked for authority from the officials of the Pro\'ince 
to confirm the appointment made by the Captain. The 
Council at once acceded to his request.^' 

A few months before leaving Maryland, Captain Corn- 
waleys purchased a plantation belonging to John Nicholls, 
whom he had frequently befriended. This man had become 
involved in debt. At the same time, at Nicholls' earnest 
solicitation and as an act of kindness, he consented, though 
he had no need for her services, to take as a servant, Nicholls' 
daughter, because he was so poor that he could not support 
his family. Nicholls later complained that his daughter had 
entered the service of the Captain at the latter's earnest 
entreaty, that she had been hired to wait upon his wife and 
to be treated like his own child. Instead, he alleged, when 
Cornwalej's departed with his wife, the girl was left behind, 
and treated as a slave. On February 11, 1662, Nicholls 
laid these complaints before the Council of the Province. 
As no witness was called on the Captain's behalf, it was 
decided that Nicholls' charges were true and it was ordered 
that the girl be restored.'" 

When Cornwaleys received information of these proceed- 
ings, he was too tenacious of his rights, and too jealous for 
the honor of his character to let this matter pass unnoticed. 
At the session of the Assembly which convened at St. Mary's, 
in September, 1663, under the Presidency of Charles Calvert, 
the eldest son of the Proprietor, Wilham Calvert and Thomas 
Notley presented a petition on behalf of the Captain (Sep- 
tember 18th). In it Cornwaleys set forth the true state 
of affairs. He told the Assembly just how Nicholls' daughter 
had come into his service and expressed his dissatisfaction 
at the action of the law in giving a verdict against him in 

" Streeter, op. cit., p. 206. 



FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 131 

Nicholls' favor." After the petition was read, it was ordered 
to be indorsed with the words "Let justice be done" and 
sent to the Governor for his signature.'- When the hearing 
of the case was to take place, Nicholls did not appear. It was 
then ordered that the whole case be brought up again before 
the Provincial Court on December 8th, 1663. Whether the 
case came up at that time, or how it was decided, the re- 
maining records do not inform us. However, if the trans- 
action was fairly investigated, the verdict was such that the 
well-earned reputation of the Captain for fairness and honor 
was completely vindicated. 

Further, trace of Cornwaleys' career, as far as we have 
been able to ascertain, is not recorded. Neill states that he 
died in 1676 at the age of seventy-two. Even this is un- 
certain since it hinges on the question as to whether the 
Thomas Cornwaleys of the genealogical tree furnished by the 
work. The Private Correspondence of Jane Lady Cornwallis is 
the same individual as Captain Thomas Cornwaleys, Com- 
missioner and Counsellor of Maryland.'^ 

Two records, one of St. Mary's County, the other of 
Baltimore County, tell us of one William Cornwaleys. The 
first is a will dated April 24, 1678; the second a record of a 
surveyor for laying out a tract for WiUiam Cornwallis, dated 
November 29, 1679.'^ Whether he was a son of the Captain 
cannot be definitely settled. Streeter thinks that this is not 
improbable.'^ The same author writes: "So disappear the 
generations, and so are dispersed the worldly goods of those 
who, in their day, have done their fellows good service. But 
their good deeds survive them. The remembrance of their 
virtues will not die out. In the present case, 'stet nominis 
umbra.'' As the men of the past had reason to respect the 
man himself, so those of the present, on a recapitulation of 
the deeds of his active and useful life . . . will pay a merited 
tribute of honor to the name of cornwaleys." '" 

'' / — Archives, p. 463. 
'UHd., p. 466 



1 UlU., p. 1UU. 

Neill, op. cil., p. 81. 

Streeter, op. cit., p. 211; Richardson, op. cil., p. 333. 

Streeter, op. cit., p. 211. 



" streeter, op. cu., p. zii 
^* Streeter, op. cit., p. 211 
'^Ibid 



CHAPTER XIII 

Conclusion 

The planting of a colony, amid the dangers and privations 
of a wilderness, from the most ancient times, assumed a 
high rank among the heroic works of man. To the credit 
due to the Maryland colonists as founders of a great State, 
undying honor belongs to them as the founders of religious 
liberty in America. Among the httle band that began the 
provincial history of Maryland on the feast of the Annuncia- 
tion, March 25, 1634, Thomas Cornwaleys stands out as one 
of the noblest. 

His career has been described in these pages. Though his 
ancestry cannot be ascertained with certainty, yet Captain 
Thomas Cornwaleys needed not the factitious blazonry of a 
noble lineage to support his fame. Whether we consider 
him as a Commissioner or Councillor, whether we study his 
acts in the colonial army as its commander, in the Assembly 
as legislator, or in the Provincial Court as judge, we are 
struck with the achievements of this man. 

As Commissioner and later as Councillor, he was the trusted 
friend of the Proprietary and the able adviser of the Governor. 
How much Lord Baltimore relied upon him in this capacity 
may be gathered from the occasion when he was appointed 
to act as Deputy Governor, and as adviser to Governors 
Calvert and Fendall. His relations with Cecilius Calvert 
seem to have always been of a friendly nature. In his letter 
to him in 1638, he speaks frankly and fearlessly — the manner 
of procedure between friends. His connections with Leonard 
Calvert, too, were generally of an amicable nature, though 
at times he had his differences with this official. 

As Captain General of the army of the colony, we find Corn- 
waleys an undaunted leader. In the quarrel with Claiborne, 
he successfully vindicated the rights of the Proprietary. In 
the suppression of Indian hostilities, he must be regarded as 
the most courageous man in the whole colony. In fact, 
132 



CONCLUSION 133 

when the cau?e of the colonists' safety and protection seemed 
to be utterly lost due to hesitancy and indifference on the 
part of the colonists themselves, then it is that we find the 
Captain levying an army of volunteers to make a desperate 
attempt to end once and for all the Indian hostilities that 
were the bane of the settlers and the friendly tribes alike. 

In the Assembly, Cornwaleys' one object was to secure 
lasting benefits of just and wise legislation for the good of 
the colony. He considered nothing so important as an 
assiduous devotion on the part of the members of the 
Assembly to carry on the business for which they met. He 
was a popular leader, championing the rights of the colonists 
on all occasions. He ever worked for the curtailing of official 
privilege. Above all, he strove for the securing of the right 
of the people to legislate for themselves. This they did 
achieve. 

His career in the Provincial Court is marked with justice 
in the vindication of the laws of the Province. Though 
he was ever on the side of justice, he was not so stern a judge 
as not to feel commiseration for the guilty. Thus we find 
him in his letter referred to so frequently in these pages, 
writing to Lord Baltimore telling him of his sorrow for the 
fate of Thomas Smith, who was condemned to death for his 
part in the Kent uprising. He also tells the Proprietor of 
his sympathy for the wife of the doomed man. His impar- 
tiality was evidenced on all occasions, notably when he was 
called upon to sit in judgment on the acts of some few who 
disturbed the peaceful relations existing between the Protes- 
tants and the Catholics. 

Cornwaleys' religion meant much to him. It was to 
secure freedom of worship that he left his native land. His 
zeal for the prosperity of the Church in Maryland has been 
described in the chapter on the relations between himself 
and the missionaries. In the annual letter of the Jesuits of 
1638, cited in the chapter on Hawley and Cornwaleys, men- 
tion was made of the fact that during that year many of 
the prominent men in the colony performed the spiritual 



134 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

exercises conducted by the Fathers. In all probability, 
Cornwaleys was one of their number. 

We might go on at length to discuss the merits of Thomas 
Cornwaleys as exhibited during his career in Maryland. 
Enough has been said in this work to bring into bold relief 
the sterling character of the Captain. Though no monu- 
ment has been erected to remind us of his services to Mary- 
land, his memory should not be allowed to pass. 



CHAPTER XIV 

Critical Essay on Authorities 
general works 

Since no account of any length has yet appeared on 
Thomas Cornwaleys, a variety of sources was consulted in the 
preparation of this dissertation ranging from works dealing 
with the history of America, the United States and England, 
to histories of various episodes and personages. The work 
of Justin Winsor, History of America, Vol. Ill, Boston and 
New York, 1884, contains a splendid account on the History 
of Maryland. To the study of the writer on Maryland in 
this critical work, Mr. Winsor has added the fruit of his own 
researches. In the work entitled The American Nation, 
edited by Albert Bushnell Hart, LL. D., the volume (Vol. IV) 
by Lyon Gardiner Tyler, LL. D., England in America, New 
York and London, 1904, a succinct account of Maryland with 
a very good bibliography is to be found. Henry William 
Elson's History of the United States of America (Vol. I), New 
York, 1905, also embraces a brief account of the period with 
which we dealt. English histories employed were: John 
Lingard, D. D., The History of England (Vols. VII and VIII), 
London, 1855; and Dodd-Tierney, Church History of Eng- 
land, Vols. IV and V, London, 1841 and 1843. The latter 
is a highly annotated work. 

GENERAL WORKS ON MARYLAND 

Standard authorities for the history of Maryland are John 
V. L. McMahon, An Historical View of the Government of 
Maryland, Baltimore, 1831, of which only the first volume 
appeared; John Leeds Bozman, The History of Maryland (2 
Vols, Baltimore, 1837, covering the period of 1634 to 1658) ; 
J. Thomas Scharf, History of Maryland (3 Vols., Baltimore, 
1879) ; James McSherry, A History of Maryland, Baltimore, 
1852. Of these McMahon's work was found of the greatest 
value in considering the Maryland Charter. Bozman has 
written a highly documented work that is very thorough. 

135 



136 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

William T. Russell, now Bishop of Charleston, S. C, in 
Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, Baltimore, 1907, has dealt 
principally with the story of religious toleration in Maryland 
history. His book is enriched with copious references. 
Newton D. Mereness has contributed a valuable work on 
the government of Maryland in his work, Maryland as a 
Proprietary Province, New York, 1901. Other works deaUng 
with this subject are Herbert L. Osgood's article in the 
American Historical Reiiew (Vol. II, 1896-97), The Pro- 
prietary Province as a Form of Colonial Government ; 
William Hand Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate , 
Boston, 1888. 

SPECIAL WORKS ON THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

Sebastian F. Streeter, in his Papers relating to the Early 
History of Maryland, Baltimore, 1876, gives a very good 
account of Thomas Cornwaleys. The chapter contains few 
references. However, the author has been found most 
reliable. A distinct feature of the Streeter Papers is the brief 
biographical notice he gives of the members who composed 
the first Assembly of Maryland of which a record has come 
down to us. Rev. Edward D. Neill, in a work entitled, The 
Founders of Maryland, Albany, 1876, devotes a chapter to 
Thomas Cornwaleys. He also wrote an article under the 
caption Thomas Cornwaleys and Early Maryland Colonists, 
Boston, 1889 (reprinted from the N. E. Historical and 
Genealogical Register for April, 1889). In both these pro- 
ductions, Neill contrary to all authorities asserts that Corn- 
waleys was a Protestant. The author is not free from bias 
and has not been used in this dissertation except in a few 
instances and then only with reservation and when he had 
other authorities to support his statements. 

DOCUMENTARY MATERIAL FOR THIS BIOGRAPHY 

The printed Archives of Maryland, published by the Mary- 
land Historical Society, have furnished the best source 
material in the preparation of this dissertation. Five 
volumes of these colonial records contain material dealing 



CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 137 

with Thomas Cornwaleys. They are the following: Vol. I, 
Proceedings of the Assembly, Jan. 1637-8 — Sept. 1664, Balti- 
more, 1883; Vol. Ill, Proceedings of the Council, 1636-1667, 
Baltimore, 1885; Vol. IV, Provincial Court, 1637-1650, 
Baltimore, 1887; Vol. V, Proceedings of the Council, 1667- 
1687/8, Baltimore, 1887; and Vol. X, Provincial Court, 
1649/50-1657, Baltimore, 1891. It is to be regretted that 
these volumes are not enriched with more copious indices. 

Clayton C. Hall, Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684, 
in J. F. Jameson's Original Narratives of Early American 
History, New York, 1910. 

Two numbers of The Calvert Papers have been most 
serviceable. Number 1, Baltimore, 1889, contains letters of 
such persons as Thomas Cornwaleys, Cecilius Calvert, 
Governor Calvert, Father Copley and others; Number 3, 
Baltimore, 1889, gives A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto 
Maryland. 

A manuscript of the Public Record Office dealing with an 
episode in the Ingle affair, labeled Admiralty High Court, 
Libel Bundle, 108, No. 21, is to be found in the Library of 
Congress Transcripts. 

Other sources that have been valuable aids in studying the 
Ingle-Cornwaleys case are Lords' Journal, Vol. VIII, 1645- 
1646; Manuscripts of the House of Lords, calendared in 
Historical Manuscripts Commission, Sixth Report, London, 
1877. 

Besides the Relation referred to above, there are two other 
accounts dealing with the coming of the Maryland colonists, 
the Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam, by Father Andrew 
White, S. J., published with an English translation and edited 
by Rev. E. A. Dalrymple, S. T. D., in Baltimore, 1874; and 
A Relation of Marxjland, reprinted from the London edition of 
1635, and edited with notes and an appendix by Francis L. 
Hawks, New York, 1865. 

HISTORIES OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS 

In several histories dealing with the Jesuit Order, material 
on Cornwaleys was found available. Of these, the best is 



138 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 

that of Thomas Hughes, S. J., History of the Society of Jesus 
in North America Colonial and Federal (2 volumes of Text 
and 2 volumes of Documents), New York, 1907-1917. Other 
works under this category are: Henry Foley, S. J., Records 
of the English Proiince of the Society of Jesus (Vol. Ill), 
London, 1878, and Rev. William P. Treacy, Old Catholic 
Maryland and Its Early Jesuit Missionaries, Swedesboro, 
N. J., 1889. 

BIOGRAPHIES 

In studying the extant genealogies of Thomas Cornwaleys, 
the following works were consulted: Alexander Brown, The 
Genesis of the United States, Boston and New York, 1890; 
The Private Correspondence of Jane Lady Cornwallis, London, 
1842; The Cyclopedia of American Biography, New York, 
1915; and Dictionary of National Biography (Vol. XII), 
edited by Leslie Stephen, New York, 1887. As noted in the 
first chapter of this dissertation, the genealogical notices of 
Thomas Cornwaleys do not appear to us as conclusive. 

GENERAL WORKS CONSULTED 

George Alsop, A Character of the Proiince of Maryland, 
reprinted from the original edition of 1666, with introduction 
and notes by Newton D. Mereness, Cleveland, 1902. — Wil- 
Uam Hand Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert Lords 
Baltimore, New York, 1890. — Catholic Record Society, Vol. 
VIII, Miscellanea, London, 1913.— R. H. Clarke, LL. D., 
Bancroft's History of the United States, in The Catholic World 
(Vols. 38 and 39).— Sanford Cobb, The Rise of Religious 
Liberty in America, New York, 1902. — George Lynn- 
Lachlan Davis, The Day-Star of American Freedom or The 
Birth and Early Growth of Toleration in the Province of 
Maryland, New York, 1855. — M. F. Howley, Ecclesiastical 
History of Newfoundland, Boston, 1887. — Edward Ingle, 
Captain Richard Ingle, the Maryland Pirate and Rebel, Balti- 
more, 1884. — John Johnson, Old Manjland Manors, Balti- 
more, 1883. — John Kilty, The Land-Holder's Assistant and 
Land-Office Guide, Baltimore, 1808. — John H. Latan^, The 



CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 139 

Early Relations hetween Maryland and Virginia (Johns 
Hopkins University Studies), Baltimore, March and April, 
1895. — R. R. Madden, The History of the Penal Laws 
enacted against Roman Catholics, London, 1847. — Very Rev. 
V. F. O'Daniel, O. P., S. T. M., Cuthbert Fenwick—Pioneer 
Catholic and Legislator of Maryland, in The Catholic 
Historical Retieiv, Vol. V; and The Right Rev. Edward 
Dominic Fenwick, 0. P., Washington, D. C, 1920. — 
Beauchamp Plantagenet, A Description of the Province of 
New Albion (printed in 1648), American Colonial Tracts, Vol. 
II, No. 6, Rochester, 1898.— Thomas Wentworth Strafford, 
Letters and Dispatches, edited by Sir George Radcliffe (2 
Vols.), London, 1739. — Hester Dor.sey Richardson, Side- 
Lights on Maryland History, Baltimore, 1913. — John Gil- 
mary Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the United States 
(Vol. I), New York, 1886; and Maryland and the Contro- 
versies as to her Early History, in American Catholic Quarterly 
Renew (Vol. X), Philadelphia, 1885. — Bernard C. Steiner, 
Ph. D., Beginnings of Maryland 1631-1639, Baltimore, 1903; 
and Maryland during English Civil Wars, Baltimore, 1903. 



VITA 

George Boniface Stratemeier was born in Pittsburgh, Pa., 
April 21, 1895. He received his elementary education in St. 
Joseph's School, Pittsburgh, and his classical course in St. 
Vincent College, Beatty, Pa. He entered the novitiate of 
the Order of Preachers at St. Joseph's Convent, Somerset, 
Ohio, in 1914, and in the following year the Dominican House 
of Studies, Washington, D. C. Here were completed his 
studies in Philosophy and Theology. He was ordained to 
the priesthood on June 12, 1921. From 1915 until 1922, he 
followed courses at the Catholic University in American 
Church History, the Enghsh Counter-Reformation and 
English Institutions, under Rev. Peter Guilday, Ph. D.; in 
American Church History, under Rev. Patrick W. Browne, 
S. T. D.; in Medieval Institutions, under Rev. Paschal 
Robinson, 0. F. M., S. T. D. ; in Medieval German Legends 
and Indo-Germanic Philology, under Paul Gleis, Ph. D.; 
and in Homiletics, under Rt. Rev. Hugh T. Henry, Litt. D., 
LL. D. 












^1 






^°"nK 










,4*\.«'JL'«-'5>^ 




,^;* /\ '•:,.- 



0" /, 






^°^ 






»">,. 














<l1°^ 
























f -A: *'-/ --M^: %/ •^■- \./ .-^S^t %.** •• 






- v/^b 

«? "^ '^V^^' a'T "^ neacidined using the Bookkeeper process. 

.•f* **^ ".^^»%y4 •*■ t SiSSzIng Agent: Magnesium oxide 

V «^. e • » • ^ Trealment Date. 






,f^-BJi l I \^^„^. I in M TECHHOLUCjIbS, LP 



Si^ 



'bV" 






iP-56. 



PRESERVATION TECHMOLUUlES, LP . 
Thomson Park DnvR 



» ^'d* ^'tiy'^^TIS^ II- lit Thomson parKurivc 

« '^, »^^**!»' IV \ "l Cr,nl»-.yTo«nship. PA 16066 









ni^ . • • . 






^^.^'^^ . 





















.^^ 



^•i«^*V .P*.c:^,% .**.i^^V .o*.c^.% 






--lO^ .1 
















-•lo* .1 
























HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 

^I^SEP 89 

#feB^ N MANCHESTER, 
^^^ INDIANA 46962 




'•• \/ .-ffi^-- %.** .-^v \/ .•^•, %,# -•■ 

^ "<pk » V-sS.v^ ♦ tCy ^tt> • ©Bra ♦ <S' '^. o^ 



-^^ ♦. 



'^o. 



